IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 7TH MARCH 2008 / 17TH PHALGUNA 1929 W.P(C).No. 6527 of 2008(B) --------------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- ABDUL JAMAL, S/O.KHASIM, KANNANCHAKKASSERRY, KAKSON HOUSE, VADAKKEKARA, PATTANAM, N.PARAVUR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.MOHANAKANNAN SMT.A.R.PRAVITHA RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. 2. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, VADAKKEKARA, NORTH PARAVOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 3. RAJENDRAN, THYKOOTATHIL HOUSE, PATTANAM, VADAKKEKARA, N.PARAVUR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 4. P.K.GOPI, PADATHUPARAMBIL, PATTANAM, VADAKKEKARA, N.PARAVUR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI. M. DINESH, SC FOR KWA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C) No. 6527 OF 2008 - B = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 7th day of March, 2008 J U D G M E N T The prayer in this writ petition is to direct the 2nd respondent to shift the pipe line from the property of the petitioner covered by Ext. P2. Petitioner would submit that the pipe line is laid through the property belonging to the petitioner and therefore he made Ext. P4 request for shifting the same. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the 4th respondent, on instruction, would submit that it was through a public pathway through which the pipe is laid and a public tap was also provided for the benefit of the general public. According to the learned counsel this was done by the Water Authority on the request of the Chittattukara Panchayat. It is stated that subsequent to all these, the petitioner purchased properties on either side of the pathway and widened the access to his residential premises and it is thereafter that the present claim is raised on the premise that the pipe is laid through his property. It is reiterated by the Water Authority that the public pipe laid is passing only through W.P.(C) No. 6527 OF 2008 - 2 - the public pathway and not through the private property of the petitioner. 2. From the submissions made by either side, it is obvious that the dispute is as to whether the public line is passing through the petitioner's private property or through the pathway vested in the Panchayath. This is not a dispute which can be resolved in a writ petition. For this, in my view, it is for the petitioner to approach the appropriate civil court which alone can appreciate the facts and resolve the issue. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE jan/-