IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 3RD AUGUST 2009 / 12TH SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 21836 of 2009(Y) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- P.C.MOHANDAS, S/O.NARAYANA KURUP, AGED 43 YEARS, `MOHANAM', KALADY P.O., MALAPPURAM-679 582. BY ADV. SRI.C.A.CHACKO SMT.C.M.CHARISMA SRI.N.A.SHAFEEK SRI.K.S.SALEESH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. OMBUDSMAN FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOZHIKODE. 4. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KOZHIKODE. 5. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, MAVOOR VILLAGE, KOZHIKODE. 6. THE SECRETARY, MAVOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH, MAVOOR, KOZHIKODE. 7. MADHAVAN NAIR, POTTAMMEL HOUSE, PERUVAYAL POST, KOZHIKODE. GOVT. PLEADER SRI.V.MANU. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P(C).No.21836 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of August, 2009 JUDGMENT 1.The petitioner seeks relief against a decision of the learned Ombudsman for Local Self Government Institutions. The ground appears to be that the 7th respondent had converted an item of paddy field and has put up a building in that site. The report Ext.P5 apparently discloses that the petitioner and the 7th respondent are relatives and the personal bickerings have led to the present litigation. Learned Ombudsman has taken the view that the case in hand is not an appropriate one for him to act. I do not find any jurisdictional error or legal infirmity in that decision, having regard to the scope and parameters of powers of the learned Ombudsman in terms of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994. Not only that, the decision of the learned Ombudsman does not, in any manner, impair the right of the petitioner to seek remedies from authorities, including appropriate courts. WPC.21836/09 Page numbers 2. While the petitioner says that he had been complaining about the attempt to convert the paddy field from 2006-07 and that no due action has followed, the petitioner had appropriate remedies available before the District Magistrate or the Additional District Magistrate in terms of the Code of Criminal Procedure or even for relief from the civil court. A perusal of the materials on record show that the repositories of power under the State Executive Government, including the statutory authorities, have apparently not acted appropriately. Therefore, while this Court is not inclined to entertain the plea of the petitioner as against the decision of the learned Ombudsman, the Principal Secretary in the Local Self Government Department will look into the materials on record and also any further materials and representation that the petitioner would place and take a decision as to whether the officers in the State administration had acted as befitting Government servants. If the intervention of the Revenue Department is necessary, the views of the Principal Secretary in the Revenue Department would also be taken. Any action or WPC.21836/09 Page numbers decision in the aforeregard shall follow within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, a copy of this writ petition and any further representation that the petitioner may place before the Principal Secretary to the Government of Kerala in the Local Self Government Department. The petitioner is authorised to place a copy of this writ petition and a copy of this judgment along with his representation before the aforesaid authority. The writ petition is ordered accordingly. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge. kkb.4/8.