IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 1ST DECEMBER 2009 / 10TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 34454 of 2009(B) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ K.V.HARIHARAN, S/O.VELAYUDAN, KADAVITHARA, ERAMALLUR, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.T.MADHU RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. THE EZHUPUNNA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, EZHUPUNNA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 2. K.V.PADMANABHAN, S/O.VELAYUDAN, KADAVITHARA, ERAMALLUR, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 3. K.V.SHANMUGHAN, S/O.VELAYUDAN, KADAVITHARA, ERAMALLUR, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 4. K.V.SUGATHAN, S/O.VELAYUDAN, KADAVITHARA, ERAMALLUR, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 5. K.V.VISWANATHAN, S/O.VELAYUDAN, KADAVITHARA, ERAMALLUR, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/12/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C).No.34454 of 2009-B = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 1st day of December, 2009. JUDGMENT The petitioner and respondents 2 to 5 are the children of Velayudhan, it is pleaded. Ext.P2 is a receipt issued by the first respondent Ezhupunna Grma Panchayat on 5.9.2009 evidencing the receipt of Ext.P1 objections of the petitioner to an alleged construction activity being carried out by respondents 2 to 5 in a piece of land that belonged to late Velayudhan. In Ext.P1, the petitioner states that the construction is in violation of the rules and without the consent of the petitioner as a co- owner. It is also stated that the construction is without obtaining permit. What essentially the petitioner pleads is the assertion of his rights in the land. What would have either as a suit for partition or a suit for perpetual injunction has WPC34454/09 -: 2 :- been placed before the first respondent Grama Panchayat as a representation alleging violation of building rules. The petitioner's contention in the writ petition is that the construction activity is being carried out in violation of the laws. Petitioner has adequate remedies before the civil court even if the construction activities are in violation of the law relating to Panchayats and building rules. When such relief being available, I do not find any ground to issue a writ of mandamus to compel the first respondent to take action on Ext.P1. This writ petition is accordingly dismissed without prejudice to the petitioner seeking other alternate remedies. THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. Sha/0212