Muralee Krishna, J.

1. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs;

                  “(i) Issue a Writ of Mandamus or other appropriate Writs, directions or Orders commanding the 2nd Respondent to pursue further effective proceedings by issuing confirmation Order and causing demolition of the unauthorised structures erected by Respondents 3 and 4 in the property covered by Exhibit-P1 Sale Deed, and take the proceedings commenced by Exhibit-P4 Provisional Order under section 235W of The Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 to its legal and logical conclusion, as mandated by law;

                  (ii) Issue a Writ of Mandamus or other appropriate Writs, directions or Orders commanding the 2nd Respondent to pursue further proceedings against the unauthorised constructions by Respondents 3 and 4, dehors Exhibit-P7 Notice, and pursue emergent action to stop further unauthorised constructions by them encroaching into petitioner's property covered by Exhibit-P1 Sale Deed”.

2. As per the pleadings in the writ petition, the father of the petitioner, namely, Late T.M Joseph, obtained 53 cents of property in survey No.19/1 of Pallivasal village of Devikulam Taluk by virtue of Ext.P1 sale deed bearing No.3247/1996 dated 06.11.1996 of SRO Devikulam. Later, the property was mutated in his name as per the Thandaper No.2563 of Pallivasal Village. The relevant page of the mutation register showing remittance of land tax dated 28.01.1997 by the father of the petitioner is produced as Ext.P2 in the writ petition.

                  2.1. The petitioner further pleads that on the death of his father, the property devolved upon the petitioner and his two siblings and also his niece, who is the daughter of a deceased sister of the petitioner. The petitioner and the other co-owners are permanently settled outside Kerala, and therefore, they engaged a power of attorney holder to take care of the property. According to the petitioner, respondents 3 and 4, who are the natives of Munnar and politically influential persons, encroached on the portion of the aforesaid 53 cents of property and put up structures therein. The power of attorney holder of the petitioner made complaints to the Police and also to the Secretary of the 1st respondent Pallivasal Grama Panchayat, to which he was issued with Ext.P3 receipt dated 13.01.2023. On receipt of the said complaint, the 2nd respondent issued Ext.P4 order dated 20.03.2023 under Section 235W of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994. In that order, the 2nd respondent made a reference to a public interest litigation filed by an organisation, ‘One Earth One Life’, before this Court against all the Local Self-Government Institutions in Devikulam Taluk and nearby localities of Idukki district. But the property covered in Ext.P1 sale deed is not involved in that litigation. Ext.P4 order directs demolition of unauthorised construction carried out by the 3rd respondent by encroaching on the property of the petitioner.

                  2.2. Since the respondents 3 and 4 continued the unauthorised construction, the petitioner submitted Ext.P5 representation dated 03.11.2023 through his power of attorney holder before the 2nd respondent. Instead of pursuing Ext.P4 provisional order, the 2nd respondent issued Ext.P7 notice dated 30.01.2024 to the power of attorney holder of the petitioner, stating that in order to solve the boundary dispute, the petitioner can approach the revenue department. Under those circumstances, the petitioner was constrained to approach this Court with the writ petition.

                  2.3. On 12.06.2024, when his writ petition came up for admission, this Court issued notice to respondents 3 and 4 by speed post. The learned Standing Counsel for Pallivasal Grama Panchayat entered appearance for respondents 1 and 2.

                  2.4. On 04.07.2024, when this writ petition was taken up for consideration, this Court suo motu impleaded the Tahsildar Devikulam Taluk as additional 5th respondent. The petitioner was directed to serve a copy of the writ petition on the learned Government Pleader, and the learned Government Pleader was directed to verify the patta claimed by the petitioner and the party respondents.

                  2.5. On 09.09.2024, as per order in I.A.No.1 of 2024, additional respondents 6 to 8 were impleaded in the writ petition. The learned Special Government Pleader submitted that the proceedings initiated pursuant to the order of this Court dated 04.07.2024 to verify the patta claimed by the petitioner and the party respondents are in progress. Accordingly, this Court directed the learned Special Government Pleader to place on record an affidavit sworn to by the additional 5th respondent.

                  2.6. On 10.02.2025, when this writ petition was taken up for consideration, despite service of notice, none appeared for the 4th respondent. The learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out Ext.P9 photographs produced along with I.A.No.2 of 2024. Having considered the materials on record and also the submissions made at the Bar, on 10.02.2025, this Court directed the additional 5th respondent Tahsildar, to conduct an inspection of the constructions alleged to have been undertaken by the respondents 3 and 4 in their respective properties and submit a report along with photographs before this Court.

                  2.7. On 25.03.2025, when the writ petition was taken up for consideration, the learned Special Government Pleader submitted that the derivation of title is not discernible from Ext.P1 title deed. The Special Government Pleader, on instructions from the additional 5th respondent, further submitted that Ext.P2 Thandaper account has already been cancelled. On 25.03.2025, we directed the additional 8th respondent District Collector, to place on record an affidavit within four weeks.

                  2.8. On 05.06.2025, the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent sought some more time to file a counter-affidavit. The learned Special Government Pleader sought some more time to get specific instructions on the building seen in Ext.P9 photograph. On that date, we directed the additional 5th respondent to submit a report along with few photographs of the buildings constructed by respondents 3 and 4, by the next posting date.

3. The additional 5th respondent filed a counter affidavit dated 30.06.2025 in the writ petition. Paragraphs 2 to 5 of that counter affidavit read thus;

                  “2. The above Writ Petition is not maintainable either on law or on facts. The petitioner herein is not found with clean hands and he has suppressed various facts. The title of the petitioner itself is not genuine and the thandapper account of the petitioner has been cancelled and he is no longer the owner of the property.

                  3. It is submitted that in the present Writ Petition, the petitioner’s specific allegation is that his property has been encroached by the 3rd and 4th respondents and constructed residential house therein. The 3rd and 4th respondents has constructed the residential houses therein under the Life Mission Scheme and under the IAY PMRY Scheme. The 3rd respondent, Jayaprakash has started the construction of the house in the year 2015 and completed in 2017. During the year 2018, at the time of flood, his house has been collapsed and he has reconstructed the same in the year 2019 and is residing therein. The same is constructed as per the Government Scheme under the IAY PMRY. The said house is a single storied house with 4 rooms and having square feet area of 950 sq. ft.

                  4. The 4" respondent, Ravi along with his parents and two children are residing near to the house of Jayaprakash in the said property itself. The said house is constructed in the year 2007 and completed in the year 2008. A new room was constructed to the present house and the same is concreted. The house constructed in the year 2008 under the IAY Scheme and is a tiled house and the new room constructed is a concreted one. The building at present is having a total area of 700 sq. ft.

                  5. It is submitted that the 3rd and 4th respondents have constructed the said residential house in the Government puramboke land and they have not received any patta till now. Earlier, the Panchayath has issued the Possession Certificate and on the basis of the same they are residing there. The 3rd Respondent has applied for patta and the said application is pending”.

4. On 04.07.2025, when the writ petition was taken up for consideration, the learned Special Government Pleader submitted that the photographs of the disputed buildings, which have already been referred to in the counter affidavit filed by the additional 5th respondent, shall be placed on record along with a memo.

5. The 3rd respondent filed a counter affidavit dated 03.07.2025 opposing the averments in the writ petition and producing therewith Ext.R3(a) document. Paragraphs 4 to 8 of that counter affidavit read thus;

                  “4. Para Nos.1 and 2 of the writ petition is absolutely false and hence denied. The contention of the petitioner that his father had ownership over 53 cents of property in Survey No.19/1 of Pallivasal Village of Devikulam Taluk as per Ext.P1 sale deed and was remitting land tax with thandaper No.2563 of Pallivasal Village is absolutely false. Ext.P1 sale deed is a fabricated document created by influencing corrupt officials. The thandaper account of the petitioner is cancelled by the Revenue officials on verification of records and the petitioner and his siblings had no title over the properties in Survey No.19/1 of Pallivasal Village of Devikulam Taluk. Moreover to the knowledge of the 3rd respondent, the petitioner is a land grabber in Devikulam Taluk. The activity of the petitioner is to encroach upon Government properties by fabricating documents and to sell the same subsequently after filing some litigations as owner of the property against innocent and poor people, who do not have any capacity to conduct litigations in various forums and based on those uncontested judgments, the petitioner is claiming title by producing before the authorities. The present writ petition is part of that sinister motive. The petitioner’s name has surfaced as a land grabber at Chokramudi and eviction proceedings were initiated by the revenue authorities. Contra claims of the petitioner in para Nos.1 and 2 of the writ petition are absolutely false and hence denied.

                  5. Para Nos.3 and 4 of the writ petition is absolutely false and hence denied. I has submitted application for assigning the property in which I am residing and occupying with the revenue authorities and my name is included in the list of eligible persons entitled for assignment of land. But unfortunately, the application for assignment of property is not in my possession. In the counter affidavit of the 5th respondent, the 5th respondent had admitted that my application for assignment of land is pending with the revenue authorities. Myself and my wife constructed the building under the Life Mission Scheme and under IAY PMRY Scheme. The construction of the building was started in the year 2015 and the construction was completed in the year 2017. During the flood in the year 2018, the building was collapsed and was reconstructed in the year 2019 and I am residing therein. Since the construction of the building was as per Government scheme and under IAY PMRY Scheme and below 1000 sq.ft.(the plinth area of building is 950 sq.ft.) no building permit from the local authority is required. True copy of the application for granting assistance under IAY PMRY Scheme submitted before the Block Development Officer, Adimaly along with all the relevant documents dated 19.09.2015 is produced herewith and marked as Exhibit R3(a). Contra claim that I encroached upon the property of the petitioner is absolutely false and hence denied. The petitioner had no property in Survey No.19/1 of Pallivasal Village.

                  6. Para Nos.5 and 6 of the writ petition is absolutely false and hence denied. The 2nd respondent issued Ext.P4 provisional order without understanding that the residential building was constructed under the IAY PMRY Scheme, which does not require any building permit. Earlier, the panchayat has issued possession certificate and residential certificate to the 3rd respondent, which also form part of Ext.R3(a). The 2nd respondent issued Ext.P4 notice due to the influence of the petitioner and that is the reason why the 2nd respondent stated that there is encroachment over the property of others. After realizing the mistake, the 2nd respondent dropped the proceedings and for that reason, no final orders were issued. Contra claims raised by the petitioner in para No.5 and 6 of the writ petition are denied.

                  7. Para Nos.7 and 8 of the writ petition is absolutely false and hence denied. The 2nd realized that the disputes raised by the petitioner in Ext.P5 has no relevance and is a non- existing claim. It was in that circumstances, the 2nd respondent issued Ext.P7 communication. Contra claims raised by the petitioner in para Nos.7 and 8 of the writ petition are absolutely false and hence denied.

                  8. Para Nos.9 and 10 of the writ petition is absolutely false and hence denied. The claim of the petitioner that the 3rd respondent had no property in Survey No.19/1 of Pallivasal Village is absolutely false. Myself and my family are residing in the property from the year 2010 onwards and has submitted application for assignment of the property. The assignment application is pending and I am included in the list of assignable persons. As a matter of fact, the petitioner has no property in survey No.19/1 of Pallivasal Village and the petitioner is attempting to grab the government property, which is proposed to be assigned to the landless and persons belongs to SC/ST community. I cannot be described as an encroacher of government property as my assignment application is still pending with the revenue authorities and myself is included as a person entitled for assignment. Contra claims are denied”.

6. To the counter affidavit filed by the 3rd respondent and the additional 5th respondent, the petitioner filed a reply affidavit dated 08.08.2025.

7. On 14.08.2025, when the writ petition was taken up for consideration, the learned Special Government Pleader submitted that the petitioner herein is an encroacher of revenue land in the Chokramudy area, which is the subject matter in W.P.(C) No.1801 of 2010, pending before this Court. The learned Special Government Pleader sought time to get instructions as to the further course, if any, taken against the petitioner after the cancellation of the thandaper account of 53 cents of land in survey No.19/1 of Pallivasal village claimed by the petitioner by virtue of Ext.P1 title deed. On 14.08.2025, we directed the learned Special Government Pleader to get instructions as to the title of the property in which respondents 3 and 4 have put up constructions under the Life Mission - Indira Avas Yogana - Prime Minister Rozgar Yogana Scheme (‘IAY PMRY’ for short).

8. In terms of the directions contained in the order dated 18.09.2025, the additional 8th respondent, District Collector, has sworn to an affidavit dated 23.09.2025, furnishing the details of the property held and owned by the petitioner and his family. Paragraph 2 of that affidavit read thus;

                  “2. It is submitted that by interim order dated 20.08.2025, this Honourable Court has directed the District Collector, Idukki to report the details of the property owned in the name of Maijo Joseph and his family in various places of Idukki District. As per the direction of this Honourable Court, the Office of the District Collector by letter dated 22.08.2025 has given communication to all the Tahsildars to furnish the details of the properties of Maijo Joseph and his family in Idukki District. The offices of the Tahsildars of Idukki, Peermedu, Thodupuzha and Udumbanchola has communicated that no properties has been found out in the said taluks. The details of the properties hold and owned by Maijo Joseph and his family is furnished herewith”.

                 

                 

                9. The petitioner filed a reply affidavit dated 11.12.2025 to the affidavit filed by the 8th respondent.

10. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel for the Pallivasal Grama Panchayat, the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent and the learned Special Government Pleader.

11. The dispute in this writ petition is pertaining to the constructions carried out by respondents 3 and 4 on the property in question situated in Pallivasal village. The petitioner contends that the aforesaid property in which respondents 3 and 4 effected constructions is included in Ext.P1 title deed in the name of his father, late T.M Joseph. According to the petitioner, respondents 3 and 4 encroached into a portion of that property and effected constructions. The petitioner says that the property having an extent of 53 cents situated in survey No.19/1 of Pallivasal Village, covered in Ext.P1 sale deed is mutated in the name of his father.

12. On the other hand, the 3rd respondent in his counter affidavit contends that he submitted an application for assignment of property in which he is residing with his family and noting the same, his name is included in the list of eligible persons entitled to get the assignment of land. He constructed a building in that property under the Life Mission Scheme and under the IAY PMRY Scheme. The construction of the building was started in 2015 and completed in the year 2017. However, during the flood of the year 2018 the building was collapsed and it was later reconstructed in the year 2019 under the Government schemes. Since the plinth area of the building is below 1000 sq. ft. no building permit from the local authority is required for the construction of the said building.

13. When the petitioner alleges construction of the building by respondents 3 and 4 as one carried out by encroaching into his properties,   all  the  contesting  respondents,  including  the additional 5th respondent, would state that the constructions carried out by respondents 3 and 4 are under Government Schemes such as the IAYPMRY scheme and the Life Mission Scheme. According to the 5th respondent Tahsildar, the application for assignment of land submitted by the 3rd respondent is pending consideration.

14. However, from the counter affidavit filed by the 5th respondent, it can be gathered that the constructions effected by the 3rd and 4th respondents, though under the Government Schemes, those house constructions are in puramboke land to which no patta was issued till date. During the course of arguments, the learned Standing Counsel for the 1st respondent Grama panchayat submitted that the 3rd respondent initially constructed a house in the PMRY Scheme, and it was damaged in the 2018 flood. Thereafter, the 3rd respondent was allotted another house in the LIFE Mission Scheme. The learned Standing Counsel further submitted that the 4th respondent initially constructed the house under the IAY PMRY scheme, which was also damaged in the 2018 flood. Thereafter, the 4th respondent was also allotted another house in the LIFE Mission Scheme. Whether houses can be allotted in the Government schemes on puramboke lands by executing the agreements like Ext.R3(a) produced along with the counter affidavit filed by the 3rd respondent is a matter that has to be enquired into by the authorities concerned.

15. Similarly, from the materials placed on record and the submissions made at the Bar, we notice that the Thandaper account in the name of the father of the petitioner was already cancelled by the revenue authorities. According to the 5th respondent Tahsildar, the petitioner is having no right in the property in question.

16. Having considered the pleadings and materials on record and the submissions made at the Bar, we are of the opinion that the petitioner has not disclosed the full facts in the writ petition, and he approached this Court not with clean hands. Therefore, he is not entitled for the equitable relief sought in the writ petition. At the same time, on going through the averments in the counter affidavit filed by the 5th respondent and the averments in the affidavit filed by the 8th respondent, we are of the view that the encroachments, if any, committed by the petitioner as well as respondents 3 and 4 on the Government lands have to be enquired into by the 8th respondent District Collector and thereafter appropriate action shall be taken in accordance with law, if found necessary.

                  In the result, this writ petition is disposed of directing the 8th respondent District Collector, idukki to conduct a detailed enquiry regarding the encroachments, if any, committed by the petitioner as well as respondents 3 and 4 on Government lands and take an appropriate decision in accordance with law after affording them an opportunity of hearing, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate,  within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.