IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 29TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 7TH ASWINA 1931 WP(C).No. 22110 of 2009(G) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ T.K. VARGHESE, THURUTHIL HOUSE, KADUGMANGALAM P.O., THIRUVAKULAM - 682 305. BY ADVS. MR.V.K.GOPALAKRISHNA PILLAI, MR.GOPAKUMAR G. (ALUVA). RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------------- 1. CHOTTANIKARA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, CHOTTANIKARA P.O., PIN 682 312. 2. THE SECRETARY, CHOTTANIKARA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, CHOTTANIKARA P.O., PIN 682 312. 3. K.S. GIRIDASAN, KARAKKATTU VEEDU, NOW RESIDING AT KADINGAMANGALAM KARA THIRUVAKULAM P.O., KANNAYANNUR TALUK, PIN 682 305. R1 & R2 BY MR.S.SREEKUMAR R3 BY ADV. MR.SAJI VARGHESE KAKKATTUMATTATHIL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.22110/2009 G APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF COMPLAINT DTD. 13/08/07. P2: COPY OF COMPLAINT DTD. 15/04/08. P3: COPY OF COMPLAINT DTD. 19/06/08. P4: COPY OF REPLY DTD. 7/10/2008. P5: COPY OF APPLICATION DTD.1/06/09. P6: COPY OF REPLY DTD. 30/06/2009. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO JUDGE Kss THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C).No.22110 of 2009-G = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 29th day of September, 2009. JUDGMENT The petitioner complains about failure of action of respondents 1 and 2, who are authorities under the Panchayat Raj Act, on the complaint of the petitioner that the third respondent has trespassed into certain public land resulting in water logging of certain areas, detrimental to the interest of the petitioner. The petitioner has a right royal remedy before the civil court. He also had remedies available under the Code of Criminal Procedure before the District Magistrate. Nonetheless, he only wants the Grama Panchayat to take action. Though he complains of delay of more than one year after a decision of the panchayat, the fact remains that the petitioner has not chosen to seek remedies before any other jurisdictions which are efficacious. WPC22110/09 -: 2 :- The learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2 states that they have requested the revenue authorities to measure out the properties. The revenue authorities are not parties to this writ petition. Not only that, one fails to understand as to why the petitioner stood wait for the cumbersome procedure of the exercise through the LSGIs and the revenue officials when the civil courts and the magistracy working under the Cr.PC have large amount of power available to redress grievances in the nature as highlighted by the petitioner. Hence, recording the submission of respondents 1 and 2 that they have asked the revenue authorities to measure out the properties, this writ petition is closed without prejudice to other remedies. THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. Sha/031009