JUDGMENT : Nitin Jamdar, C. J. This Appeal is filed under Section 5 of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958, by Respondent No. 13 in W. P. (C) No. 509 of 2022 instituted by Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 herein, challenging the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 1 August 2022. The learned Single Judge has directed that the encroachment by the Appellant should be removed immediately. This order is the subject matter of challenge in this Appeal. 2. Heard Mr. Lakshmi Narayan, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the Appellant, Mr. Peeyus A. Kottam, learned counsel for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, Mr. M. R. Sasi, learned counsel for the Respondent Panchayat and Mr. T. P. Sajan, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the State. 3. Though various orders have been passed and documents placed on record, the issue lies in a narrow compass. 4. The Petitioners - Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 herein claim to be residents of the Grama Panchayat, where the Appellant was conducting a plywood factory and door manufacturing unit. Petitioners stated that the factory is close to their residential houses and causing sound and water pollution. The writ petition was filed primarily on the grounds that the Appellant / Respondent No. 13 does not possess the necessary legal permission to conduct the factory and the manufacturing unit, and its activities are on the land, an encroachment in river Puramboke.Petitioners filed the writ petition for the following prayers:- “a) Call for the entire records leading to Ext-P8 order and quash the same by issuing a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ order or direction; b) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction and thereby command the 8 th respondent to stop the functioning of the factory of 13 th respondent till he complies with the condition imposed by 10 th respondent in Ext-P6 order; c) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction and thereby command the 8 th respondent to initiate proceedings under the Kerala Land Conservancy Act against the 13 th respondent as directed by this Hon'ble Court in Ext-P5 judgment"." 5. The Appellant filed a counter affidavit in the writ petition and denied the allegations. The Appellant contended that the Petitioners' residential house is far away, and there is no pollution or annoyance to the Petitioners. The Appellant filed a counter affidavit in the writ petition and denied the allegations. The Appellant contended that the Petitioners' residential house is far away, and there is no pollution or annoyance to the Petitioners. It was stated that necessary licences from the Registration Department and Department of Factories and Boilers had been obtained to conduct the unit. It was submitted that there is no unauthorized construction or illegal construction, and there is neither any encroachment on the property. 6. A statement was filed on behalf of the State that a forest licence has been issued in favour of the Appellant to run a wood-based industrial unit and that the Appellant had applied with a request to enhance the machine capacity. The State took the stand that none of the contentions made by the Petitioners against the Appellant are correct, and all permissions are in place. 7. By a short order, the learned Single Judge directed that the encroachment be demolished. The learned Single Judge referred to Ext. P5 judgment in the earlier round of litigation wherein it was directed that if there is encroachment in river Puramboke by the Appellant, necessary action be taken. The learned Single Judge referred to the decision of the Panchayat and noted that the Appellant failed to appear and proceeded to issue the directions for encroachment. The impugned order has not dealt with various aspects sought to be urged before us. There is also no reference to the aspect of permissions, etc. 8. In the Appeal, orders have been passed from time to time on 24 August 2022, 2 September 2022, 5 December 2022, 14 December 2022 and 2 April 2024. These detailed orders deal with various issues not found in the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge. 9. Primarily, the issue revolves around the allegations levelled by the Petitioners/neighbours of the Appellant that the Appellant has encroached upon a river puramboke. Encroachment alleges that the predecessor in title of the Appellant who had executed the Patta in favour of the Appellant has shown the river puramboke land in the said Patta. The gist of the allegation is that the Patta issued in favour of the predecessor of the Appellant sometime in the year 1974 itself indicated this encroachment. During the pendency of the writ petition, the learned Single Judge had directed the State Authorities to conduct a survey. The gist of the allegation is that the Patta issued in favour of the predecessor of the Appellant sometime in the year 1974 itself indicated this encroachment. During the pendency of the writ petition, the learned Single Judge had directed the State Authorities to conduct a survey. The survey was carried out by the Tahsildar, who submitted a report to the Court. This report indicated that there was an encroachment. Based on this report, the learned Single Judge proceeded to issue certain directions against the Appellant. 10. In the appeal, the Division Bench noted that the aspect of encroachment would fall within the provisions of the Kerala Survey and Boundaries Act, 1961 (Act of 1961), which directed that the Taluk Surveyor should carry out a survey. Under Section 10 of the Act of 1961, the Survey Officer has the power to determine and record the boundaries based on which the question as to whether there is an encroachment can be decided. It appears that after the Survey Officer passed the order, the matter was taken in Appeal under Section 11 of the Act of 1961. These facts have been recorded in the order dated 16 February 2023 passed in Contempt Case (C) No. 2217 of 2022 and in the present Appeal. 11. The order in Appeal under Section 11 was against the Appellant, and the Appellant invoked the power of revision by the District Collector under Section 13A of the Act of 1961. Section 13A reads thus:- " "13A. Power of revision by the Collector.- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in Section 13, the Collector may, on an application from any person or any authority, examine the record in respect of the determination of any boundary which has been completed and the fact of such completion has been notified under Section 13, to satisfy himself as to the legality of the determination of such boundary, and if, in any case, the Collector is satisfied that the determination of such boundary should be modified or revised, on the ground of any discrepancy, inaccuracy, defect or mistake of any kind crept in such determination, he may pass orders accordingly: Provided that the Collector shall not pass any order affecting any party unless such party has had an opportunity of making a representation. (2) Where determination of any boundary is modified or revised by an order under sub-section (1), the Survey Officer shall publish the fact of such modification or revision, as the case may be, in the Gazette and also in the notice board of the Village Office to which the survey relate "." Therefore, if the Collector is satisfied that the determination of the boundary should be modified/revised on the grounds of any discrepancy, etc., he may pass orders accordingly after giving the opportunity to make representation to the parties. This power, therefore, clearly indicates that there must be a reasoned order. 12. The communication issued by the District Collector dated 14 August 2024 has been placed on record. This document gave no reasons. In these circumstances, the learned Special Government Pleader stated that the communication issued by the District Collector dated 14 August 2024 under Section 13A of the Act of 1961 would be withdrawn, and a fresh order would be passed. 13. Therefore, to minimize any further dispute, by order dated 14 January 2025, we directed the District Collector to give an opportunity of hearing to both the Appellant as well as the Petitioners, as the measurements already carried out by the Surveyor and reports are on record, and to pass a detailed order on the issue. 14. Thereafter, the District Collector, invoking powers under Section 13A of the Act of 1961, passed an order that the learned Special Government Pleader placed on record. The learned Special Government Pleader pointed out that the District Collector, after hearing the parties, had disposed of the revision, holding that there is no encroachment on the Government property as alleged. 15. The learned Single Judge passed the impugned order based on the decision of the Grama Panchayat. This decision was thereafter the subject matter of revision by the District Collector under Section 13A of the Act of 1961. Since the District Collector has passed an order under Section 13A holding that there is no encroachment on the Government land, the impugned order directing forthwith removal of encroachment based on the order of Panchayat does not survive. 16. The learned counsel for the Original Petitioners sought to argue on the merits of the order passed by the District Collector. The Petitioners seek to continue the challenge on the grounds of nuisance, annoyance and pollution. 16. The learned counsel for the Original Petitioners sought to argue on the merits of the order passed by the District Collector. The Petitioners seek to continue the challenge on the grounds of nuisance, annoyance and pollution. The allegation that the unit causes nuisance, annoyance, and pollution is an entirely different subject matter than there is an encroachment on the government land. The writ petition was not filed as a Public Interest Litigation. Petitioners stated that the factory is close to their residential houses and is causing sound and water pollution; however, no civil suit for an injunction based on annoyance, nuisance, or affecting light and air has been filed. Nor is there a grievance and direction to the Pollution Control Board in this petition. It is not the case of the Petitioners that the encroachment is on Petitioners' land. The challenge is on the ground that there is an encroachment on government property, and the activity is done without permission. That is the limited ambit of this proceedings. On a specific query to the learned Special Government Pleader, he submitted that the District Collector has found that there is no encroachment, and, therefore, it is the stand of the State that there is no encroachment on the Government land. It is also the specific stand of the State that the factory has all the necessary permission. 17. The learned Counsel for the Petitioners states that the Petitioners intend to challenge the order of the Collector. In the order dated 14 January 2025, noting the litigation instituted by the Original Petitioners, we granted liberty to the Original Petitioners to participate in the revision proceedings where they were heard. Therefore, we intend to give the Petitioners an opportunity to challenge the order passed by the District Collector without commenting on the merits of the challenge. 18. The learned counsel for the Appellant submitted that the factory had been closed due to the malicious proceedings by the Petitioners. It is submitted that as far as the allegation of unauthorized construction is concerned, the construction is now regularized, and the order of regulation is the subject matter of challenge by the Original Petitioners in an independent proceeding. He submitted that great financial loss is being caused to the Appellant due to closure, resulting in unemployment among its workers. It is submitted that the Appellant had incurred serious financial liabilities. He submitted that great financial loss is being caused to the Appellant due to closure, resulting in unemployment among its workers. It is submitted that the Appellant had incurred serious financial liabilities. When the State itself has made it clear that there is no encroachment and even the structure is regularized, there should not be any impediment to restart the unit. 19. Considering the facts and circumstances, we are of the opinion that four weeks can be granted to the Original Petitioners to challenge the order of the District Collector. If the order of the District Collector is not set aside or stayed by a competent court/authority, then the Appellants can be permitted to restart the factory unit. Conditions can be imposed on the Appellant to adhere to all necessary stipulations under the law for restarting the unit, which can also be made subject to obtaining all necessary permissions under the law. 20. Accordingly, we dispose of the Appeal as under. 21. The impugned judgment passed by the learned Single Judge is quashed and set aside. If the order passed by the District Collector dated 2 February 2025 is not set aside or stayed by a competent court/forum within four weeks from today, the Appellant will be permitted to restart its activities. This, however, shall be subject to the Appellant obtaining/possessing all the necessary licenses as required under law for the functioning of the said factory issued by the Official Respondents, including that by the Panchayat. The Appellant shall also comply with the legal conditions imposed. In case any of the statutory authorities find any violation of the permissions, it is always open to the statutory authorities, as is done in other cases, to take necessary action, as required under law. 22. The parties' contentions in the other pending proceedings are kept open. 23. Appeal is disposed of in the above term. The four weeks will commence from the date of uploading the judgment.