K. Unnikrishnan vs Secretary, Department of Local Self Government Institutions, The Secretary Mambad Grama Panchayat and The Sub Inspector of Police Nilambur Police Station

C.T. Ravi Kumar, J.—The petitioner claims to be the owner in possession of 16 acres of land in Survey No.1 of Pullippadam (Mambad) Village in Malappuram District. According to the petitioner, there is no road or pathway through the petitioner''s property and the second respondent Panchayat encroached upon his property and constructed a concrete road of about 7 metres starting from the western portion of the property. A scanning of the contentions would reveal that the construction was already over. The contention of the petitioner is that the action on the part of the respondents is nothing but illegal and therefore, the respondents are bound to remove the said construction. It is the further contention of the petitioner that the said action on the part of the respondents is violative of Article 300A of the Constitution of India. It is in the aforesaid circumstances that the petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding the second respondent Secretary of the Grama Panchayat to demolish the illegal construction made by the Panchayat without the consent of the petitioner and for consequential reliefs.

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Government Pleader.

The pleadings in this writ petition as also the reliefs sought for would undoubtedly reveal that the petitioner virtually seeks for a relief in the nature of mandatory injunction against the respondents to demolish the construction already effected. True that the contention of the petitioner is that it is an illegal construction effected after committing illegal encroachment into his property. Whether the second respondent Panchayat have committed illegal encroachment into the property or whether it was legal construction is a matter of evidence and such a matter cannot be decided in this writ petition. Such disputatious facts have to be decided in a properly instituted civil suit. In the said circumstances, I am of the view that this writ petition with the aforesaid prayers cannot be entertained by this court in view of the nature of the averments, allegations and reliefs and the petitioner has to avail the civil remedy to redress his grievances. Therefore, without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to avail such remedy this writ petition is dismissed.