IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD MARCH 2010 / 12TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 6852 of 2010(F) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- K.K.SASIDHARAN, S/O. KANDUNNY, KADALIKKATTIL HOUSE, PURATHUR P.O. TIRUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.A.MAJEED SRI.K.H.ASIF RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. PURATHUR GRAMA PANCHAYAT, REP. BY IT'S SECRETARY, PURATHUR, TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 3. MR.ALIKUTTY, S/O. MR.MOHAMMED, PATTASSERIPADICKAL HOUSE, PURATHUR P.O., VIA, TIRUR-2, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. MS.K.R.DEEPA, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.6852 of 2010 (F) --------------------------------- Dated, this the 3rd day of March, 2010 J U D G M E N T Challenge in the writ petition is against Ext.P9. 2. The petitioner made an application to the 2nd respondent for numbering 3 shop rooms constructed by the petitioner in a property purchased by him from the 3rd respondent as per Ext.P1 title deed. The case of the petitioner was that the building was constructed by the 3rd respondent before the execution of Ext.P1 and therefore, Section 220 of the Panchayat Raj Act was inapplicable. 3. When the Panchayat declined to number the building, the petitioner filed a complaint before the Ombudsman and examined his transferor before the Ombudsman as PW1 and evidence was adduced to the effect that he had constructed the building before the transfer of the property by Ext.P1 document. The Ombudsman verified the title deed and found that the existence of the building was not mentioned in the title deed, and on that basis, rejected the WP(C) No.6852/2010 -2- application made. It is this order, which is under challenge. The learned counsel for the petitioner now submits that before 1988, when the building was transferred, only foundation was constructed and that the remaining construction was completed by the petitioner before 1994 when the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act came into force. If this be the factual position, the evidence of PW1 as reported in Ext.P9 is factually erroneous and therefore the course open to the petitioner is to seek correction of such error by seeking appropriate review before the Ombudsman itself. Therefore, with that liberty, this writ petition is dismissed. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg