IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 21ST MAY 2009 / 31ST VAISAKHA 1931 WP(C).No. 13325 of 2009(I) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- CHERUNGAL MOITHEENKUTTY, S/O.MAMMI, KAKKATTUPARA, THOZHUVANOOR P.O., VALANCHERY. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.JAYACHANDRAN SRI.M.S.SAJEEV KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE SPECIAL GRADE SECRETARY, VALANCHERRY GRAMA PANCHAYAT, VALANCHERRY, MALAPPURAM. ADDL.2.THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, TIRUR, MALAPPURAM. (ADDL.R2 IMPLEADED VIDE ORDER DTD.21.5.09 ON I.A.NO.5769/09) R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.SANDHESH RAJA.K. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/05/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P(C).No.13325 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of May, 2009 JUDGMENT 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader. Notice to the first respondent dispensed with. 2.The petitioner applied for licence to put up a compound wall. The Secretary of the Grama Panchayat has issued Ext.P7 forbidding the construction of the compound wall and taking the stand that he had received a complaint that the petitioner is trying to put the boundary wall enclosing an existing pathway. He has stated in Ext.P7 that the said issue has been referred to the Revenue Divisional Officer for adjudication and unless the RDO takes a final decision, the petitioner cannot make any construction and would not be issued the permit as sought for. I do not find any legal error in the view taken by the Special Grade Secretary of the Grama Panchayat. However, the petitioner points out that on the basis of the WPC.13325/09 Page numbers revenue records, the Village Officer has issued a certificate showing that there is no pathway as alleged in Ext.P7. This, therefore, generates a disputed question of fact and though remedies would be available elsewhere, as of now, the petitioner can have a decision at the hands of the RDO, having regard to the contents of Ext.P7. Hence, without expressing anything on merits, this writ petition is ordered directing that on production of a copy of this judgment, the first respondent will issue to the petitioner the identity of the matter pending before the second respondent RDO to enable him to forthwith move the second respondent for further expeditious disposal of any such pending matter. If such a request is received from the petitioner, the second respondent RDO will make an effort to dispose of the matter at the earliest, in accordance with law, after hearing necessary parties. Having regard to the nature of the contentions, it is also ordered that the RDO ensures that necessary revenue records are also looked into. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge. kkb.21/5.