IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR THURSDAY, THE 17TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 26TH BHADRA 1931 WP(C).No. 9655 of 2009(Q) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- SIVADASAN,AGED 52, S/O.CHITTAZHIBALA VINODINI AMMA, CHERUTHURUTHY VILLAGE,THALAPPALLY TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADVS. MR.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR), MR.K.RAVI (PARIYARATH). RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, COLLECTORATE,AYYANTHOLE,THRISSUR. 2. MAYA UDAYAN,CHERAPARAMBIL HOUSE, CHERUTHURUTHY VILLAGE DESOM, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 3. EASWARAN UNNI.P.V., EASWARA PURI,CHERUTHURUTHY VILLAGE DESOM, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 4. THE ASST.EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, P.H.SUB DIVISION,KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, WADAKKANCHERRY,THRISSUR DISTRICT. R1 BY GOVT. PLEADER MR. AMJAD ALI, R2 TO R3 BY ADVS. MR.RAJIT, MR.PRAJI, R4 BY ADV. SMT.AMBIKA DEVI, SC, KWA. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/09/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.9655/2009-Q: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE NOTICE SERVED ON THE PETITIONER BY THE R.1. DTD. 24/01/2009. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE R.1. DTD. 11/03/2009. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT IN O.S. NO. 608/2003 DTD. 06/02/2004 BEFORE THE MUNSIFF COURT, WADAKKANCHERY. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE R.1. DTD. 13/03/2009. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C).NO.2559/2009 BY THIS HONOURABLE COURT DTD 27/02/2009. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBIT: EXT.R2.A: COPY OF THE ORDER NO. DB579/93 DTD. 28/03/2009 ISSUED BY THE R.4. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE. Prv. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. =========================== W.P.(C)No.9655 OF 2009 =========================== Dated this the 17th day of September,2009 JUDGMENT This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to quash Ext.P4 order passed by the first respondent Revenue Divisional Officer. Case of the petitioner is that Ext.P4 order is patently illegal as Revenue Divisional Officer has no jurisdiction to direct the Water Authority to give water connection to respondents 2 and 3 by laying pipeline through the property of the petitioner. Ext.P4 order shows that it is not an order passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate in exercise of any of the powers provided under the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is issued by the first respondent in his capacity as the Revenue Divisional Officer. By the said order, first respondent has not directed the Water Authority to give water connection to respondents 2 and 3. On the other hand it is only a request by the Revenue Divisional Officer to consider the application for water connection by respondents 2 and 3. In such circumstance, I find no necessity to quash Ext.P4. If W.P.(C) 9655/2009 2 pursuant to Ext.P4 water connection is given by laying pipeline through the property of the petitioner without his consent, he is at liberty to take appropriate proceedings to remove the same, in accordance with law. Petition is dismissed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE tpl/- M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. --------------------- W.P.(C).NO. /06 --------------------- JUDGMENT SEPTEMBER,2006