Petitioner claims to be the owner in possession of an extent of 7.5 cents of land, out of which 5 cents is in Sy. No. 1388/2 and 2.5 cents is in Sy. No. 1388/2-4-2 of Peroorkada Village. This property was, in fact, obtained by him by way of a registered partition deed No. 1827/88 of Sasthamangalam Sub Registrar's Office, out of which he had sold certain item of property to Smt. Zaina. Later, he had purchased 2.5 cents of land from one Sivarjan by sale deed No. 3159/2002/1. 2. His complaint is about the action taken by the revenue authorities as well as the Irrigation Department, calling upon him to stop any construction in the puramboke land which, according to the Revenue Department, is lying between the compound wall constructed by the Irrigation Department and petitioner's property.
3. In W.P(C) No. 33356/2010, Ext. P1 is the stop memo issued by the Assistant Engineer of the Irrigation Department. It is inter alia stated that the petitioner has trespassed into the property of the Irrigation Department and constructed a retaining wall. He was called upon to demolish the same within a period of five days.
4. According to the petitioner, he has not trespassed into any portion of the Government property and what he is holding is only the land which he has obtained in terms of the title deeds referred above.
5. Counter affidavit is filed by the 2nd respondent in the said writ petition inter alia stating that Ext. P1 order was issued calling upon the petitioner to remove the illegal construction of raising of river side protection wall done by the petitioner over the existing side protection wall constructed by Government through Irrigation Department to protect the river course and side bank puramboku. It is further stated that the intention of the petitioner was to encroach upon puramboke land. They have also produced Ext. R2(a) letter of the Taluk Surveyor along with sketch as Ext. R2(b) to indicate that an extent of 4.818 cents of land belonging to the Government is available in the said area which is required for future development works. It is further stated that the petitioner has constructed the wall in the Government puramboke.
6. W.P(C) No. 4835/2014 is filed by the petitioner challenging Exts. P5 and P7 and for a direction to the respondents not to interfere in the peaceful possession and enjoyment of petitioner's property and permit him to carry on developmental activities in the same.
7. Ext. P5 is the stop memo issued by the Village Officer inter alia indicating that the petitioner is unlawfully making constructions in the land situated in re-survey No. 56 in Block No. 5 of Ward No. 10 of Peroorkada Village, which is treated as Government puramboke land. Ext. P7 is another stop memo issued by the Village officer on 4.2.2014, reiterating the aforesaid stand in Ext. P5 and restraining the petitioner from making any further constructions.
8. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has no intention to encroach into any puramboke land as such. He is only making construction in the property belonging to him having an extent of 7.5 cents. It is contended that even assuming that some puramboke land exists between the wall on the river side and petitioner's property, no proper survey had been conducted in that regard. Government can claim any portion of property belonging to the petitioner as puramboke land only after conducting proper survey in the mater.
9. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader, based on the counter affidavit filed in W.P(C) No. 33356/2010, would submit that the Taluk Surveyor had already measured the property and puramboke land has been identified. Petitioner, though has a right in respect of 7.5 cents of land, he has no right to make any construction in the puramboke land as stated in Ext. R2(b) plan.
10. Having regard to these factual situation, I am of the view that these writ petitions can be disposed of as under:
(1) The petitioner has all legal right to make construction in 7.5 cents of land which he has got title. It is made clear that the stop memo has no application to the 7.5 cents of land belonging to the petitioner.
(2) The Taluk Surveyor shall identify puramboke land referred to in Ext. R2(b) and fix boundary with notice to the petitioner and once boundaries are fixed, in the event of any dispute, it shall be open for the petitioner to challenge the survey in accordance with the procedure prescribed.
(3) Until such time the survey is completed, the petitioner shall not make any construction in the area demarcated in Ext. R2(b) plan as puramboke land.
(4) The entire process shall be completed within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Sd/- A.M. Shaffique, Judge.
Tds/