Petitioner challenges Exts. P9 and P10 and also seeks for a direction to exempt his property from eviction demolition and proceedings. Ext.P9 is an order passed by the Executive Engineer, PWD, inter alia, stating that the property of PWD cannot be assigned for any purpose. This was based on a request made by the petitioner for assignment of certain item of property which, according to PWD, is 'road puramboke'. 2. Ext.P10 is a notice issued under Rule 13(a) of the Land Conservancy Rules. As per Ext.P10, it is indicated that petitioner is in possession of certain item of land, which belongs to PWD. The property is having a width of 60 cms and 31.60 meters length and another item is having a width of 10 cms and 8.20 meters length.
3. According to the petitioner, the alleged 'puramboke' land is forming part of the compound wall constructed by the petitioner, and it is, inter alia, contended that proper W.P.C.No.11942 OF 2014 2 measurement has not been done and the procedure as contemplated under law has not been complied with.
4. Perusal of Ext.P7 would indicate that on the request of the petitioner, a measurement has been conducted in her presence and the survey sketch had been finalised. Under such circumstances, it cannot be contended that the respondent authority has no right to invoke land conservancy proceedings.
5. It is pursuant to the same that Ext.P10 notice had been issued. Having regard to the fact that the property involved has been measured, and it is found by the authorities that the 'road puramboke' is in possession of the petitioner, necessarily, proceedings has to be initiated under the Land Conservancy Act and Rules, thereunder.
In the said circumstances, I do not find any infirmity with the proceedings initiated in terms of Ext.P10 and, therefore, this writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/- A.M.SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE sd // TRUE COPY // P.A. TO JUDGE