IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 23RD MARCH 2010 / 2ND CHAITHRA 1932 WP(C).No. 9629 of 2010(C) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. SHABANATH BEEGAM,AGED 37 YEARS, W/O.SHEIK RAJA HUSSEIN,CHENOTH PARAMBU(H), KALLAMPARA,PANANGATTUKARA(PO),VADAKKANCHERRY(VIA), TRICHUR DISTRICT. 2. P.A.NASEER,AGED 42 YEARS, S/O.SHEIK AMER SAHIB,CHENOTH PARAMBU(H) KALLAMPARA,PANANGATTUKARA(P.O),VADAKKANCHERRY(VIA) TRICHUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.JESWIN P.VARGHESE RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THEKKUMKARA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,THEKKUMKARA(P.O), TRICHUR DISTRICT.PIN;680 608. 2. THE TALUK SURVEYOR,THALAPPILLY TALUK, VADAKKANCHERRY(VIA),TRICHUR DISTRICT. 3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER,THEKKUMKARA, VADAKKANCHERRY(VIA),TRICHUR DIST.PIN:680 608. 4. MUHAMMED SHERIFF,MANAGER,MND L.P.SCHOOL, KALLAMPARA,PANANGATTUKARA.(P.O)VADAKKANCHERRY(VIA) TRICHUR DIST.PIN:680 623. 5. NOORJAHAN MUSTAFA,AGED 65 YEARS, W/O.MUSTAFA,KURUPPUKULAMBI(H),KALLAMPARA, PANANGATTUKARA(PO),VADAKKANCHER RY(VIA), TRICHUR DIST.PIN:680623. 6. SHEIK HYDER,AGED 42 YEARS, KURUPPUKULAMBIL(H),KALLAMPARA,PANANGATTUKARA.PO, VADAKKANCHERRY(VIA),TRICHUR DIST.PIN:680 623. WP(C) NO.9629/2010 7. FAKKIR JAAN,AGED 70 YEARS,S/O.BAAJI SAHIB,KURUPPUKULAMBIL(H),KALLAMPARA, PANANGATTUKARA(P.O),VADAKKANCHER RY (VIA), TRICHUR DIST.PIN.680 623. MS.K.R.DEEPA, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.9629 of 2010 (C) --------------------------------- Dated, this the 23rd day of March, 2010 J U D G M E N T It would appear that proceedings were initiated against the petitioners on the allegation that they had trespassed into public road. When notice was issued, that was challenged before this Court by filing WP(C) No.1243/2010. That writ petition was disposed of by Ext.P7 judgment directing that the property be measured and the alignment be fixed to determine whether there was any trespass. In pursuance to the directions in Ext.P7 judgment, the 2nd respondent measured the property. However, it is alleged that they measured only one side of the road, which is adjacent to the petitioners' property, and the case of the petitioners is that unless both sides of the road are measured, it will not be possible for the 2nd respondent to fix the alignment and to determine whether there was any trespass from their side. Following the survey that was conducted in pursuance to the directions in the judgment, the petitioners were issued notices. WP(C) No.9629/2010 -2- The petitioners state that though they submitted Exts.P9 & P10 representations, that was refused to be accepted by the 2nd respondent. 2. If as a matter of fact, the petitioners have any complaint, about the alleged irregularity that was committed by the 2nd respondent in conducting the survey in pursuance to the directions in Ext.P7 judgment, I see no reason why the 2nd respondent should have refused to accept Exts.P9 & P10. 3. Having regard to the complaint that the 2nd respondent refused to accept Exts.P9 & P10, I direct that it will be open to the petitioners to produce Exts.P9 & P10 along with a copy of this judgment, in which event, the 2nd respondent will accept the same and deal with the complaint as well. The petitioners shall produce a copy of this judgment along with a copy of this writ petition before the 2nd respondent, who shall comply with the above directions. This writ petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg