IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 12TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 21ST KARTHIKA 1932 WP(C).No. 33725 of 2010(M) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ UNNIKRISHNAN, AGED 43 YEARS,S/O.CHIDAMBARAN, KANIATHARA,KUZHUPPILLY,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.GEORGE SEBASTIAN, SRI.E.RADHAKRISHNAN. RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. KUZHUPPILLY GRAMA PANCHAYAT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-682 501. 2. KADALVEPPU PUTHANPADAM THUNDIPPURAM KRISHI SAMAJAM, KUZHUPPILLY-REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY A.K.SUDHARMAN, S/O.KUMARAN, ANJALASSERY, KUZHUPPILLY - 682 501. 3. SRI.ATHAPPAN, S/O.PAULOSE, OOKKAN HOUSE,EDAVANAKKAD (PRESIDENT,KADALVEPPU PUTHANPADAM THUDIPPURAM KRISHI SAMAJAM,KUZHUPPILLY)- 682 501. R1 BY ADV.SRI.H.B.SHENOY,SC,KUZHUPPALLY GRAMA PANCHAYAT R2 & R3 BY ADV. SRI.K.A.JALEEL, SRI.C.Y.VINOD KUMAR. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/11/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.33725/2010 M APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE DOCUMENT NO.1184/2008 DTD. 7/05/2008 OF KUZHUPPILLY SRO. P2: COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT DTD.6/11/2010 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICE, KUZHUPPILLY. P3: COPY OF THE COMPROMISE DEEDDTD. 19/11/2008. P4: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 3/11/2010 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE SECRETARY OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: R3(A): COPY OF THE RECEIPT NO.38 DTD. 12/01/2010 FOR REMITTANCE OF RS.45,154/- TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT BY THE 'KADALVEPPU PUTHANPADAM THUNDIPPURAM KRISHI SAMAJAM'. /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P (C) No.33725 of 2010 -------------------------- Dated this the 12th November, 2010 J U D G M E N T The only prayer sought in the writ petition is a direction to the first respondent to consider Ext.P4 representation made by the petitioner. 2. According to the petitioner, he is the owner of 20 cents of paddy land which he acquired on the basis of Ext.P1 title deed. It is stated that adjacent to the property of the petitioner, in the thodu which is owned by the Panchayat, there is a sluice which is operated by the second respondent with the permission of the first respondent. 3. Petitioner states that if the sluice is operated damages will be caused to the petitioner's property and that in the previous years, he was being compensated for the same. According to him, in Ext.P4, he is seeking an order from the first respondent not to grant permission to the second respondent for making use of the sluice in the thodu this year without compensating him. The case of the second respondent is that they have W.P (C) No.33725 of 2010 2 no liability to compensate the petitioner and that no damage will be caused to him if the sluice is operated. They also contend that they do not require any permission of the Panchayat for operating the sluice, though it is fixed in the property of the Panchayat. As already noticed, in this writ petition, all that the petitioner seeks a direction to the first respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P4. In the nature of reliefs that is sought, it is not necessary for this Court to enter into the controversy raised by both sides. Therefore, leaving it open to the Panchayat to decide the matter, the writ petition is disposed of directing the first respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext. P4 with notice to the parties concerned as expeditiously as possible, and at any rate within two weeks of production of a copy of this judgment. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE ma