IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 21ST JANUARY 2010 / 1ST MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 2080 of 2010(H) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------ JOSEPH.T.M., S/O.MATHAI, AGED 56 YEARS, RESIDING AT THOOKAMKOTTIL HOUSE, CHINNAR PO, KARIMTHARUVIKKARA, ELAPPARA VILLAGE, PEERUMEDU TALUK, IDUKKI. BY ADV. SRI.A.X.VARGHESE SRI.A.V.JOJO RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY SECRETARY, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE PANCHAYATH DEPUTY DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF PANCHAYATH,THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI. 3. THE SECRETARY,UPPUTHARA GRAMA PANCHAYATH UPPUTHARA PO, IDUKKI. 4. MATHAI, S/O.MATHAI, RESIDING AT THOOKAMKOTTIL HOUSE, CHINNAR PO, KARIMTHARUVIKKARA ELAPPARA VILLAGE, PERUMEDU TALUK, IDUKKI. 5. SALI JOSEPH, RESIDING AT THOOKAMKOTTIL HOUSE, CHINNAR PO, KARIMTHARUVIKKARA, ELAPPARA VILLAGE, PEERMEDU TALUK, IDUKKI 6. T.J.MATHEW, S/O.JOSEPH,T.M. RESIDING AT THOOKAMKOTTIL HOUSE, CHINNAR PO, KARIMTHARUVIKKARA, ELAPPARA VILLAGE, PEERMEDU TALUK, IDUKKI. SR.GOVT.PLEADER SMT.K.R.DEEPA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 2080 OF 2010 (H) ===================== Dated this the 21st day of January, 2010 J U D G M E N T Respondents 5 and 6 are the wife and son of the petitioner and the 4th respondent is his brother. 2. The pleadings in the writ petition show that 2.2 acres of land belonged to the petitioner's father Mathai. According to the petitioner, in 1962, his father executed a settlement deed in favour of the 4th respondent, one of the sons of Mathai. It is stated that this document was cancelled by his father on 16/7/90. Petitioner claims that after the death of his father, petitioner was put in possession of 50 cents of land and the building and that an application made by him for assignment of the land in his favour is pending. 3. It is stated that suppressing the deed of cancellation executed by his father on 16/7/90, 4th respondent executed document No.3008/06 selling the property, which belonged to his father, in favour of respondents 5 and 6. Thereupon the petitioner filed OS 123/09 before the Munsiff's Court, Peermade. Ext.P2 is the copy of the plaint. WPC 2080/10 :2 : 4. Petitioner submits that while the matter remains as such, the name of the owner of the building has been changed from his name to that of respondents 5 and 6. Accordng to him, this order has been passed by the Secretary of the Panchayat in collusion with respondents 5 and 6. He says that he filed Ext.P7 complaint against the action of the Secretary and that there has not been any action. 5. In my view, if the petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by the Secretary of the Panchayat, he has a remedy of appeal in terms of the provisions contained in the Kerala Panchayat Act. In view of the disputed question of fact requiring resolution, I feel the writ petition cannot be entertained. Petitioner has to be relegated to seek his statutory remedies. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of leaving it open to the petitioner to seek his remedies which are available under law. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp