Ananda Selvi vs State Of Kerala And Ors

These two writ petitions have been filed by one Ananda Selvi. In W.P(C)No.38463 of 2015 she challenged a communication issued by the Kannan

Devan Hills Plantations Company Private Limited (which company is distributing electricity in that area) that the electric connection to the building

bearing No.X/1394 will be withdrawn on account of the fact that the Building Tax Assessment has been cancelled by the Munnar Grama Panchayat.

In W.P.(C)No.21144 of 2016, the petitioner has challenged Ext.P7, which is the copy of a communication from the Secretary of the Munnar Grama

Panchayat to the Engineering Wing, Kannan Devan Hills Plantations Company Private Limited intimating that the building bearing No.X/1394 has

been removed from the Register of unauthorized buildings which had been assessed to building tax. It is this communication that lead to the issuance

of Ext.P5 in W.P.(C)No.38463 of 2015.

Though it is not discernible from Ext.P7 in W.P(C) No.21144 of 2016, any reason which prompted the Panchayat to remove building No.X/1394

from the Building Tax Register of unauthorized constructions, from the pleadings in the writ petition it appears there is a civil dispute between the

petitioner and 4th respondent regarding the right of possession over the property in question, I am of the view that the matter has to be decided by the

competent Civil Court and pending adjudication of the dispute between the petitioner and the 4th respondent, the order issued by the Panchayat

(Ext.P7) cannot be enforced. Consequently Ext.P5 communication in W.P.(C)No.38463 of 2015 issued by the Kannan Devan Hills Plantation

Company Limited regarding disconnection of electric supply, which is issued based on Ext.P7 in W.P.(C)No.21144 of 2016 shall not be enforced. The

rights of the petitioner and the 4th respondent shall be governed by the judgment and decree of the Civil Court in pending civil proceedings.

The learned Special Government Pleader for Revenue submits that most of the properties such as that is claimed by the petitioner in these writ

petitions is actually land over which they have no right of possession or ownership. This is a matter to be decided in appropriate proceedings that

should be initiated by the Government for recovery of such lands.

Without expressing any opinion on that issue, these writ petitions are ordered as above making it clear that this judgment shall not be read as

prohibiting any action under law by the Revenue Department to recover any land which, in its opinion is in illegal possession of the petitioner / 4th

respondent.