IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH MARCH 2010 / 3RD CHAITHRA 1932 WP(C).No. 8973 of 2010(V) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- KOYAKUTTY NAZAR, KUTTIYIL MULLA VEEDU (VADAKEDATHU) PADA NORTH ,KARUNAGAPPALLY,KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.B.KRISHNA MANI RESPONDENT(S): --------------- THE SECRETARY (SPECIAL GRADE) KARUNAGAPPALLY GRAMA PANCHAYATH, KARUNAGAPPALLY. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J ------------------- W.P.(C).8973/2010 -------------------- Dated this the 24th day of March, 2010 JUDGMENT Petitioner challenges Ext.P8. The facts of the case are that Ext.P1 notice was issued to the petitioner on 10.9.2009 informing that he has stored rocks on the puramboke land causing obstruction and therefore, he should remove the obstruction. That issue finally reached this Court in W.P.(C). 27383/2009, which was disposed of Ext.P5 judgment directing that Ext.P1 will be treated as a notice and it will be open to the petitioner to show cause against the notice and the respondent was directed to consider the matter in the light of the documents and to pass a reasoned order. It was also made clear that if aggrieved, petitioner can seek statutory remedies. 2. In the light of the directions in Ext.P5 judgment, petitioner filed Ext.P6 objection to Ext.P1. Based on the above, by Ext.P7, he was called for a hearing and to produce documents before the respondents. According to the petitioner, availing of the opportunity thus extended to him, he appeared before the respondent, produced Exts.P2 and P3 judgments and contended W.P.(C).8973/10 2 that rocks have been kept in the private property belonging to the petitioner. It would appear that the Secretary got the property surveyed by Tahsildar, Karunagappally, who gave a report to the effect that the rocks have been kept in the puramboke land. Based on the above, the Secretary passed Ext.P8 order dated 8.3.2010, concluding that rocks have been kept in the puramboke land over which the petitioner has no right and that therefore, the rocks should be removed. It is challenging Ext.P8 the writ petition is filed. 3. In the nature of the controversy, what is required to be decided is whether the area where the rocks have been stored by the petitioner is a puramboke land or whether the property covered by his title deed. In my view, this can be ascertained only by the fact finding authority with the help of the Taluk Surveyor and referring to the documents relied on by the petitioner as well. Such an exercise cannot be undertaken in a writ petition and therefore, the remedy available to the petitioner is to file an appeal against Ext.P8. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that he has W.P.(C).8973/10 3 not been served a copy of the report obtained by the Secretary from the Tahsildar, Karunagappally. Taking into account the aforesaid complaint, I direct that on production of a copy of this judgment, respondent shall furnish a copy of the report filed by the Tahsildar, Karunagappally, and it will be open to the petitioner to seek his appellate remedy against the impugned order. 5. In order to enable the petitioner to move the appellate authority and to obtain appropriate interim orders, it is directed that status quo as on date shall be maintained for a period of two weeks from today. 6. Petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment before the respondent forthwith. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge mrcs