K. Kannan, J. - (1.) LEARNED Counsel appearing for the Petitioner in both the cases contends that he is not in possession of the property nor is he making any assertion on purported title over the property in dispute. He only seeks the right of passage over the property claimed to be rasta have dealt with a similar point in CWP No. 11053 of 1989 as follows: A person that uses the property as a passage may not legally posses the property, but he could be said to subject the property to such use which is in derogation of the owner's right. In my view, if the Panchayat was interested in protecting the property against any misuse by any possible construction in future, it could have its injunctive relief in a civil Court. If a construction is made unauthorizedly, it could resort to an action under Section 7 of the Act for its removal. An apprehended action of the Petitioner for using the property as passage cannot come within the four corners of Section 7. A right of passage is a right asserted over the property and not an assertion in the specie of property itself. It is in the nature of easement.
(2.) WHILE disposing it of, therefore, I have directed that the authority cannot have right of ejectment under Section 7 of the Act and if only there is actual encroachment of the property and held in unlawful possession a right of ejectment under Section 7 will lie. If further there is an attempt on the part of any of the Petitioners to claim any right in derogation of the right that vests in the Panchayat over the rasta by unlawful possession of the same, the Panchayat should take resort to action for ejectment. For any apprehended action, the Panchayat complains of, the proper remedy cannot be under the Public Premises (Eviction of unauthorized occupant) Act. The impugned order is quashed and the writ petitions are allowed reserving to the Panchayat, a right to present a misuse which is in derogation of the vesting of title of the property in the hands of the Panchayat. The writ petitions are allowed as above.;