IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 7TH OCTOBER 2009 / 15TH ASWINA 1931 WP(C).No. 28066 of 2009(C) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- M.DAKSHAYANI, W/O.LATE MADATHIL BHASKARAN, SUJATHA NILAYAM, KIZHAKKUMMURI P.O., KAKKODI (VIA), KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.S.SREEDHARAN PILLAI SMT.C.G.PREETHA RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, LOCAL ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATH KOZHIKODE TALUK, KOZHIKODE-673 020. 3. KAKKODY GRAMA PANCHAYATH, KAKKODI, KOZHIKODE, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 4. THAIKANDIYIL GOPALAN, KIZHAKKUMMURI P.O., KAKKKODI (VIA), KOZHIKODE-673 611. BY GP IV PRAMOD THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J ........................................... WP(C).NO. 28066 OF 2009 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2009 JUDGMENT The petitioner and fourth respondent are neighbours. They had a civil suit between them. The petitioner continues to take up the complaint of identity of the common boundary. The issue was snow balled into an objection to a building plan and permit. That matter was placed before the Secretary of the Grama Panchayat. Complaining about the action of the Grama Panchayat, petitioner moved the Deputy Director of Panchayats. My search of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 and Rules thereunder to find out any power of the Deputy Director to sit in judgment over such matters have not yielded any result, until now. The petitioner again moved the Government, which in turn called for a report from the subordinate authorities. The Secretary of the Grama Panchayat has reported to the Government that action has been taken for having the property measured out through the Revenue officials in accordance with the decision of the civil court. I am clear in my mind that the Government also had, in law, no Wpc 28066/2009 2 authority to interfere with the statutory exercise of the panchayat Secretary under the Panchayat Raj Act. The hierarchical arrangement that could have been done in exercise of some authority referable to the legislations which held the field before the amendment relating to the Panchayat Raj system as it now exits, no more survives. Be that as it may, if the civil court has concluded on the rights of the authorities, by a declaratory decree, it could be available for the revenue officials to measure out the property in accordance with the decision of the civil court. Otherwise, as rightly pointed out by the Ombudsman for Local Self Government Institution, as discernable from the penultimate paragraph of Ext.P3, parties have to work out their remedies through civil court. In the light of the aforesaid, I do not find any room to issue any direction as sought for by the petitioner. Nevertheless, it would be open to the petitioner to take the proceedings stated to be pending before the Village Officer following the communication referred to in the last paragraph of Ext.P3 to its logical end with notice of the fourth respondent. However, that has also to be only in terms of the decision of the civil court. Hence, the Secretary of the third respondent is Wpc 28066/2009 3 directed to do the needful to have necessary follow up regarding the measurement in accordance with law, and in the light of what is stated above, pursuant to the communication dated 19.9.2008 issued by him to the Village Officer as stated in the last paragraph of Ext.P3. All other issues will stand concluded by this judgment. Writ petition ordered accordingly. Further enforcement of Ext.P4 will depend upon the action that would be taken on the basis of this judgment. THOTTATHIL B RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE lgk/8/10