JUDGMENT : Muralee Krishna, J. 1. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking following reliefs: “A. Issue a writ of mandamus to the 4 th respondent directing to act upon Ext.P14 Report. B. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to the 1 st respondent, to take appropriate measures to demolish the illegally constructed structure which is encroaching into the PWD road. C. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to respondents 1 to 7 to immediately take appropriate steps to look into the matter of encroachment by the 8 th respondent with respect to heavy fall of water over the culvert.” 2. Going by the averments in the writ petition, the petitioner is a farmer and has been permanently residing in the property in Survey No. 522/2 of Parathodu Village in Udumbunchola Taluk, from the days of his father, based on a Pattayam. There is a bridge leading to the petitioner's property from the Anakallu-Nedungandam PWD Road. The 8 th respondent, who resides opposite to the petitioner's access to the public road, has constructed his house in such a manner that it encroaches on the PWD road. Moreover, there is a pond dug illegally by the 8 th respondent for his irrigational purposes. The petitioner and his family find it dangerous even to wait for public transportation, as the width of the PWD road has been considerably altered due to these acts of the 8 th respondent. The situation becomes much more tense during the rainy season. The dangerous flow of water from the encroached portions, where the residential building of the 8 th respondent is standing, has caused almost eight accidents during the past years. No action has been taken up by the officials concerned on any of the representations. Therefore, interference by this Court is highly essential to alleviate this misery, which is threatening the peaceful existence of the Petitioner. Hence, this writ petition is filed. 3. On 05.09.2024, when this writ petition came up for consideration, this Court directed the petitioner to file an application to implead the State of Kerala represented by the Principal Secretary to Government, Revenue Department as an additional respondent. 4. Hence, this writ petition is filed. 3. On 05.09.2024, when this writ petition came up for consideration, this Court directed the petitioner to file an application to implead the State of Kerala represented by the Principal Secretary to Government, Revenue Department as an additional respondent. 4. On 10.09.2024, as per order in I.A. No.1 of 2024, the State of Kerala represented by the Principal Secretary to Government, was impleaded as additional 9 th respondent. The learned Senior Government Pleader took notice for respondents 1 to 7 and also for the additional 9 th respondent. Urgent notice by speed post was issued to the 8 th respondent returnable within four weeks. The learned Senior Government Pleader, on instructions from the 7 th respondent Assistant Executive Engineer, PWD Roads Section, Idukki submitted that based on the complaint made by the petitioner, the 7 th respondent has already inspected the property in question, who is awaiting the report of the Taluk Surveyor. 5. The 4 th respondent filed a counter affidavit dated 28.10.2024 opposing the reliefs sought in the writ petition. 6. The 3 rd respondent filed a counter affidavit dated 25.09.2024 opposing the reliefs sought in the writ petition and producing therewith Exts.R3(a) to R3(d) documents. 7. The 8 th respondent filed a counter affidavit dated 21.11.2024 opposing the reliefs in the writ petition and producing therewith Exts. R8(a) to R8(c) documents. 8. To the counter affidavit filed by the 4 th respondent, the petitioner has filed a reply affidavit dated 04.02.2025. To the counter affidavit filed by the 8 th respondent, the petitioner has filed a reply affidavit dated 04.02.2025, producing therewith Exts.P20 to P23 documents. 9. On 05.02.2025, this Court passed the following order: “The 8 th respondent has sworn to a counter affidavit dated 21.11.2024. Paragraph 3 of the counter affidavit reads thus: “It is most humbly submitted that the petitioner is a well to do and influential person in the locality. The ration shop that was in his name is now transferred to his wife. He is at present residing in a property which is more than 1 acre in extent. It is learnt that he has cultivation of cardamom and other crops. It is also learnt that the petitioner had produced an income certificate from the village officer and availed the benefit of the Legal Service Authority to file this writ petition. He is at present residing in a property which is more than 1 acre in extent. It is learnt that he has cultivation of cardamom and other crops. It is also learnt that the petitioner had produced an income certificate from the village officer and availed the benefit of the Legal Service Authority to file this writ petition. If so, the meager resources available for indigent persons are being spent for financially sound persons.” 2. Registry to obtain a report from the Member Secretary, Kerala Legal Services Authority. List on 11.02.2025.” 10. In pursuance of the directions in the order dated 05.02.2025, the Member Secretary, Kerala State Legal Services Authority, filed a report dated 10.02.2025. The said report reads thus: “Pursuant to the order dated 05.02.2025 of the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in WP(C)24239 of 2024 received by me on 07.02.2025, I called for a report from the High Court Legal Services Committee. The Secretary, High Court Legal Services Committee submitted a report dated 10.02.2025. It is seen from the report of the Secretary, HCLSC that legal aid was provided to the petitioner in the petition Sri.Devasia Antony on the basis of the income certificate furnished by the Village Officer of Parathode Village in Udumbanchola Taluk, Idukki District. The Secretary also appended a copy of the income certificate of the Writ Petitioner dated 15.12.2023. In the report it is stated that legal aid was provided to the petitioner as envisaged under section 12 (h) of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 on the basis of the income certificate of the petitioner. The report relied on Rule 12 of the Kerala State Legal Services Authority Rules 1998 whereby a person who is having annual income of less than Rs.3 Lakhs would be entitled to free legal aid. I may humbly submit that under Section 12 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 a person in receipt of annual income below the prescribed limit is entitled to free legal services. The said limit presently in Kerala is Rs.3 Lakhs as mentioned in the aforesaid Rule of the Kerala State Legal Services Authority of 1998. Further under Section 13 of the Legal Services Authorities Act a person who satisfies all or any of the criteria mentioned under Section 12 would be entitled to legal services provided that the petitioner has a primafacie case to prosecute. Further under Section 13 of the Legal Services Authorities Act a person who satisfies all or any of the criteria mentioned under Section 12 would be entitled to legal services provided that the petitioner has a primafacie case to prosecute. Under Section 13 (2) an affidavit filed by the person regarding his income will be sufficient for claiming the eligibility for legal services unless the concerned authority has reason to disbelieve the affidavit. In the present case the secretary of the High Court Legal Services Committee granted free legal aid and appointed Advocate Smt.Sujini.S for filing the writ petition based on the income certificate issued by the Village Officer, Parathode Village in Udumbanchoala Taluk, Idukki District. That being so the action of the Secretary, High Court Legal Services Committee is based on Rules. I am enclosing herewith the report submitted by the Secretary, High Court Legal Services Committee along with the copy of the income certificate dated 15.12.2023 of the Village officer, Parathode Village for kind perusal.” 11. Along with a memo dated 26.03.2025, the learned Senior Government Pleader produced a copy of the report submitted by the Village officer, Parathode, bearing No.89/2025 dated 15.03.2025. The relevant portion of the said report reads thus: 12. The 8 th respondent filed a counter-affidavit dated 09.06.2025 against the report of the Village Officer, Parathode. 13. On 20.06.2025, when this writ petition came up for consideration, this court passed the following order: “The 8 th respondent has filed a counter affidavit producing therewith Ext.R8(d) license for operation of Fair Price Shop (Ration shop) issued to the wife of the petitioner by the District Supply Officer, Idukki. In the report dated 15.03.2025 of the Village Officer, Parathodu, placed on record along with the memo dated 26.03.2025 of the learned Senior Government Pleader, it is reported that neither the wife of the petitioner nor the petitioner is running that Ration shop.” 14. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Senior Government Pleader, the learned Standing Counsel for the Nedumkandam Grama Panchayat and the learned counsel for the 8 th respondent. 15. The grievance of the petitioner is that the 8 th respondent, who is residing opposite to the petitioner’s access to the public road, has constructed his house by encroaching on the PWD Road. 15. The grievance of the petitioner is that the 8 th respondent, who is residing opposite to the petitioner’s access to the public road, has constructed his house by encroaching on the PWD Road. The 8 th respondent has also dug a pond for irrigation purposes abutting this road, and these acts of the 8 th respondent reduced the width of the PWD Road, causing difficulties to the petitioner and his family members, even to wait for public transportation. Moreover, during the rainy season, heavy flow of water from the encroached portions caused several motor vehicle accidents. 16. The 8 th respondent, on the other hand, refuted all these allegations and even challenged the eligibility of the petitioner to get legal aid under the provisions of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 . The 8 th respondent further contended that the petitioner has been using this Court to wreak vengeance on the family of the 8 th respondent. The father of the petitioner had earlier filed a writ petition as W.P.(C)No.12230 of 2022 against the 8 th respondent, wherein the petitioner was the power of attorney holder. In a criminal case, the petitioner was sentenced for the act of stabbing the son of the 8 th respondent. A counter allegation to the effect that the petitioner has built a private bridge upon the river and has actively reduced the width of the river, leading to floods every year, was also raised by the 8 th respondent in his counter affidavit. The allegation of encroachment on the PWD road is denied by the 8 th respondent. 17. The report of the Member Secretary of the Kerala State Legal Services Authority would show that the legal aid was provided to the petitioner based on the income certificate issued by the Village Officer of Parathode Village in Udumbanchola Taluk of Idukki district. In the report of the Secretary, High Court Legal Services Committee dated 10.02.2025 appended to the report of the Member Secretary of the Kerala State Legal Services Authority, it is stated that the legal aid was provided to the petitioner as envisaged under Section 12(h) of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 based on the income certificate of the petitioner. 18. 18. Section 12(h) of the Legal Services Authorities Act 1987, reads thus: “12(h) in receipt of annual income less than rupees nine thousand or such other higher amount as may be prescribed by the State Government, if the case is before a court other than the Supreme Court, and less than rupees twelve thousand or such other higher amount as may be prescribed by the Central Government, if the case is before the Supreme Court.” 19. Rule 12 of the Kerala State Legal Services Authorities Rules, 1998, reads thus: “ 12. The maximum limit of annual income for entitlement to Legal Services Any person whose annual income from all sources does not exceed Rupees Three Lakhs shall be entitled to legal services under clause (h) of Section 12 of the Act.” 20. As per the income certificate issued by the Village Officer of Parathode, the annual income of the petitioner from all sources is shown as Rs.90,000/- only. In the report dated 15.03.2025 of the Village officer, Parathode submitted by the learned Senior Government Pleader along with a memo dated 26.03.2025, it is stated that the wife of the petitioner has 00.0486 Ares of property and the petitioner has 00.3370 Ares of property in that village. Though the wife of the petitioner is a licensee of a ration shop, the shop is now run by a third person, and the wife of the petitioner is getting a sum of Rs.5000/- as commission from the shop. The petitioner is not getting sufficient income from the agricultural operations on his property and considering all these aspects, the Village Officer issued an income certificate to the petitioner. 21. Having considered the reports of the Member Secretary, Kerala State Legal Services Authority and the Secretary, High Court Legal Services Committee and also that of the Village Officer, Parathode, we do not propose to enter into the merits of the contentions of the 8 th respondent regarding the eligibility of the petitioner to get legal aid for filing the instant writ petition, especially when considering the fact that under Section 13(2) of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 an affidavit filed by a person regarding his income will be sufficient for claiming the eligibility for legal services under the authority concerned, unless the authority has reason to disbelieve the affidavit. If the 8 th respondent is aggrieved by the granting of legal aid to the petitioner, he can agitate the same before the appropriate authority concerned. 22. From the counter affidavit filed by the 4 th respondent Secretary of Nedumkandam Grama Panchayat, we notice that the PWD Road situated by the side of the property of the 8 th respondent was previously a narrow jeep road. The present PWD Road was not included in the resurvey records prepared during 1975-76. There are no previous survey records available to identify the PWD Road, which came into existence less than 10 years ago. The Panchayat has not assigned number to the building constructed by the 8 th respondent. Paragraphs 4 and 5 of the counter affidavit of the 4 th respondent read thus: “4. It is respectfully submitted that the 8 th respondent and his wife Jessy Varghese hold 0.0883 Hectors of land in Re- Survey No.127, Block No.50 of Parathodu Village. The father of the 8 th respondent constructed the house prior to the assessment year 1993, with a total area of 70 square meters as per the Panchayat records. During that period, it was customary to assign numbers to all buildings, irrespective of whether they had proper title deeds. The building was subsequently reconstructed on the same site, with the current area measuring 110.36 square meters. After the demise of the original owner, his son, the 8 th respondent, has been residing in the said house. At the time of the initial construction, the site was accessible only by a narrow jeep road. However, the Panchayat later constructed a proper road. The present PWD road was not included in the Resurvey Records prepared during the period 1975-1976. Moreover, there are no previous Survey Records to identify the Public Works Department (PWD) roads which was taken over less than 10 years ago. 5. It is respectfully submitted that, although the building in question is alleged to be constructed on encroached property, the previously numbered building has been renovated and reconstructed on the existing land. ln light of this, the Panchayat is unable to assign a building number to the 8 th respondent. lt is further submitted that the 8 th respondent and his family do not have any other house or shelter for their residence. ln light of this, the Panchayat is unable to assign a building number to the 8 th respondent. lt is further submitted that the 8 th respondent and his family do not have any other house or shelter for their residence. The 8 th respondent has informed the Panchayat that his application for patta is currently pending before the Government authorities.” 23. Similar is the counter affidavit filed by the 3rd respondent Tahsildar, Udumbanchola Taluk, Idukki district. Paragraphs 3 and 4 of that counter affidavit read thus: 3. As per the report of the Surveyor, the 8 th respondent and his wife Jessy Varghese hold 0.0883 Hectors of land in Re-Survey No.127, Block No.50 of Parathodu Village. The aforesaid land is classified in the Land Register as Thodu Puramboke. Copy of the relevant pages of the Land Register pertaining to Re-Survey No.127 is produced herewith and may be marked as Exhibit - R3(a). Although, they occupy the land without permission from the competent authority, their names appear in the Possession Register, maintained in the office of the Tahsildar, Udumbanchola. Copy of the relevant pages of the Possession Register pertaining to Re-Survey No.127 is produced herewith and may be marked as Exhibit - R3(b). 4. As per the Survey Records, a River flows through the land mentioned in Re-Survey No.127. The actual width of the River, as per the FMB, is 20 - 70 meters. But, the present width of the River is reduced to 7 - 15 meters, due to the encroachment. In order to locate the PWD road, a Surveyor was deputed by the 3 rd respondent, to identify the road. However, the present PWD road was not included in the Resurvey Records prepared during the period 1975 - 1976. Moreover, there are no previous Survey Records to identify the PWD roads. A copy of the report of the Surveyor dated 23.09.2024 is produced herewith and may be marked as Exhibit - R3(c). That apart, a Sketch was prepared by the Tahsildar, noting the area occupied by the 8 th respondent. A true copy of the Sketch prepared by the Taluk Surveyor dated 23.09.2024 is produced herewith and may be marked as Exhibit - R3(d). As per the report of the Surveyor, the tarred portion of the road is approximately 1.2 meters away from the property occupied by the 8 th respondent. A true copy of the Sketch prepared by the Taluk Surveyor dated 23.09.2024 is produced herewith and may be marked as Exhibit - R3(d). As per the report of the Surveyor, the tarred portion of the road is approximately 1.2 meters away from the property occupied by the 8 th respondent. Due to the absence of the PWD Road Sketch, the Surveyor could not locate the boundary of the PWD road. 24. From the materials on record as well as from the submissions made at the Bar, we notice that there are rival allegations against the petitioner as well as the 8 th respondent regarding violations of Building Rules and obtaining of necessary permissions from the authorities concerned. However, from the counter affidavit filed by the 4 th respondent, we notice that the 8 th respondent has renovated and reconstructed his house without obtaining necessary permission from the Panchayat. The distance to the house of the 8 th respondent from the tarred portion of the road is approximately 1.2 meters, as stated in the counter affidavit filed by the 3 rd respondent.In such circumstances, we deem it appropriate to dispose of this writ petition directing the 1 st respondent District Collector, Idukki to take necessary steps to identify the boundary of the existing PWD Road passing near the property of the 8 th respondent through the survey officials, based on the available record in the revenue offices concerned, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. If any encroachment is found committed by the 8 th respondent on the PWD road, appropriate action has to be taken by the 1 st respondent within two months from the date of completion of the identification of the boundary of the PWD road as directed above. On such identification if the construction of the building by the 8 th respondent is found violating the provisions of the Kerala Panchayath Raj Act, 1994 and the rules thereunder, the 4 th respondent shall take appropriate action, in accordance with law, after issuing due notice to the parties concerned, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within a period of two months from the date of completion of the identification of the PWD road boundary as directed above. Needless to mention that if the construction of the bridge by the petitioner across the river is without getting prior permission of the authorities concerned, as alleged by the 8 th respondent, the 8 th respondent can approach the appropriate authority for necessary relief, in accordance with law.