Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA MONDAY, THE 07TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2020 / 16TH AGRAHAYANA, 1942 PETITIONER/S: 1 BEEBI T.T. AGED 64 YEARS D/O.B.ABDULKHADER SAHIB,THAITHOTTAM, KILTAN ISLAND,UT OF LAKSHADWEEP. 2 DR.SHAH NAVAS.M, AGED 43 YEARS S/O BEEBI.T.T.THAITHOTTAM KILTAN ISLAND,U T OF LAKSHADWEEP. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.MOHANAN RESPONDENT/S: 1 THE ADMINISTRATOR, UNION TERRITORY OF LAKSHADWEEP, KAVARATHI-682555. 2 THE SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KADMAT ISLAND,UNION TERRITORY OF LAKSHADWEEP- 682556. 3 A.C.KOYAKIDAVE, ASRECHETTA,KADAMAT ISLAND, KADAMAT-682556. R1-2 BY SRI.MANU.S, SCGC, ADMINISTRATION OF THE UNION TERRITORY OF LAKSHADWEEP R3 BY ADV. SRI.M.P.KRISHNAN NAIR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07.12.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 7th day of December 2020 The Writ Petition is filed seeking enforcement of Ext.P2
order by which the petitioners and the 3 rd respondent had agreed
for settlement in respect of the encroachment alleged to have been made.
2. The 3rd respondent has filed a detailed counter affidavit
stating that he is in possession of his property alone and there is no encroachment. According to him the agreement Ext.P2 was entered into since he was mislead by the petitioners and others. The official respondents have also filed a statement.
3. The learned Senior Central Government Standing Counsel for the Lakshadweep Administration has filed a statement stating that the dispute has been arisen between the parties regarding the very same property on which they have arrived at an agreement as per Ext.P2. It is basically a civil dispute between
private parties and the 2nd respondent does not have any jurisdiction to decide civil disputes between private parties with respect to private properties and it is for the petitioners to approach the competent Civil Court for redressal of their
grievances. Learned Standing Counsel also relied on the judgment
of this Court in WP(C) No.23723/2012 in which it has been held
that jurisdiction of the Officers under Regulation 66 and 81(1) of the Land Revenue and Tenancy Regulations, 1965 is of a limited nature and that his authority is only to decide disputes between the Government and private parties. In the present case, dispute is between private parties with respect to private property. Therefore this Court will not be justified in issuing any direction to respondents 1 and 2 to enforce Ext.P2, when there is a civil dispute. The petitioners would be free to approach the Civil Court. Therefore, the Writ Petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioners to approach the Civil Court.
Sd/- P.V.ASHA rkc JUDGE APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE OWNERSHIP CERTIFICATE F.NO.19/2018-SDO/22 DATED 12.06.2018. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 11.07.2019 ALONG WITH SKETCH EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 2.2.2020. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS EXT.R3A A TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.71/2004 B1 DT.1.10.2004 OF SRO, KADAMAT EXT.R3B TRUE COPY OF COMPLAINT DT.16.07.2019 SUBMITTED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT BEFORE THE EXECUTIVE MAGISTRATE, KADAMAT EXT.R3(B)(1) TRUE COPY OF THE SKETCH SUBMITTED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT BEFORE THE EXECUTIVE MAGISTRATE, KADAMAT ALONG WITH EXT.R3B EXT.R3C TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DT.6.8.19 SUBMITTED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT BEFORE THE SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KAVARATHI EXT.R3D TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DT.12.9.20 SUBMITTED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT BEFORE THE HON'BLE ADMINISTRATOR KAVARATTI UT OF LAKSHADWEEP EXT.R3(E) TRUE COPY OF LEGAL NOTICE DT.9.3.2020 ISSUED TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT BY THE ADVOCATE AJIT.G ANJARIEKAR