IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN TUESDAY, THE 21ST DECEMBER 2010 / 30TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 37974 of 2010(V) --------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- K.M.RASHEED,AGED 37 YEARS S/O.MARAKKAR, KORAKANATTU HOUSE KUNNATHERI, THAIKKATTUKARA PO,ALWAYE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN 683 106. BY ADV. SRI.PAUL K.VARGHESE RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY (LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT) GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE CHOORNIKKARA GRAMA PANCHAYATH THAIKKATTUKARA PO, KUNNATHERI, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY PIN 683 106. 3. ABDUL KHADER, AGED 60 YEARS S/O.SAID MUHAMMED, KALLAI HOUSE KUNNATHERI,THAIKKATTUKARA PO, ALWYARE PIN 683 106. 4. ANSAR, S/O.ABDUL KHADER AGED 28 YEARS, KALLAI HOUSE KUNNATHERI,THAIKKATTUKARA PO, ALWYARE PIN 683 106. 5. KUNJU PAREED, AGED 55 YEARS S/O.KUNJU MARAKKAR, EDASSERY HOUSE KUNNATHERI,THAIKKATTUKARA PO, ALWYARE PIN 683 106. R1 BY GOVT.PLEADER SMT.K.R.DEEPA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.37974 of 2010 ------------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of December, 2010. J U D G M E N T The petitioner and respondents 3 to 5 are the residents of Choornikkara Grama Panchayat. The grievance voiced by the petitioner in this writ petition is that, the 5th respondent has put up a compound wall on the retaining wall put up by the panchayat to protect the panchayat road and that respondents 3 and 4 are also taking similar steps to put up a compound wall on the retaining wall. The petitioner contends that, respondents 3 to 5 can not put up a compound wall or any other structure on the road, vested in the panchayat and that they can put up a compound wall only in their own lands leaving the retaining wall outside the compound wall. In my opinion, if the petitioner is aggrieved by the acts alleged to have been committed by respondents 3 to 5, which are set out in this writ petition, his remedy is to move the competent civil court and seek appropriate reliefs. I therefore, find no grounds to entertain this writ petition. The writ petition fails and is 2 W.P.(C).No.37974 of 2010 accordingly dismissed without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to move the civil court seeking redressal of his grievances. P.N.RAVINDRAN, Judge. ami/