IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE MONDAY, THE 7TH APRIL 2008 / 18TH CHAITHRA 1930 WP(C).No. 5057 of 2008(B) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ DR.M.ABDUL JALAL, S/O.MUHAMMED KASIM, CHARUVILA VEEDU, MAMAM, KIZHUVILAM P.O., ATTINGAL. BY ADV. SRI.P.M.HABEEB RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. SECRETARY, POTHENKODE GRAMA PANCHAYAT, (SPECIAL GRADE), POTHENCODE P.O. 2. SAINULLABDEEN, S/O.ABDUL MAJEED, SHAMEER MANZIL, THACHAPPALLY MURI, KUDAVOOR P.O., VENGODU P.O. 3. MUHAMMED RASHEED, S/O.MUHAMMED KASIM, LIGHT HOUSE, THACHAPPALLY MURI, KEEZHTHONNAKKAL VILLAGE, KUDAVOOR P.O. 4. OMBUDSMAN FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.M.RAJAGOPALAN NAIR SRI.G.BIJU SRI.J.JAYAKUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/04/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,J. -------------------------- W.P.(C)No.5057 OF 2008 --------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF APRIL, 2008 J U D G M E N T Under challenge in this writ petition is Exhibit P3 order passed by the Ombudsman declining to adjudicate Exhibit P1 complaint submitted by the petitioner. In Exhibit P1, the complaint of the petitioner was regarding a portion of room No.584 in Division No.1 of Pothancode Panchayat. There was a further complaint that certain false entries have been entered in the property tax assessment register pertaining to room Nos.582 and 583 which admittedly belonged to the petitioner. 2. The learned Ombudsman noticed and rightly so that the dispute between the petitioner and the 3rd respondent, petitioner's brother, in respect of a portion of room having Door No.584 ( a room belonging to the 3rd respondent as per the assessment records of the Panchayat) was already under consideration by a competent civil court. On that basis, the Ombudsman passed Exhibit P3 relegating the petitioner to civil court. In the present writ petition, the prayer of the petitioner is WPC.5057/08 -2- to quash Exhibit P3 and to direct the Ombudsman to pass fresh orders on Exhibit P1 after taking evidence. The 3rd respondent though served with notice has not entered appearance before this Court. 3. I have heard Shri P.M.Habeeb, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Rajagopalan Nair, learned counsel for the Panchayat. Mr.Habeeb drew my attention to the 2nd paragraph of the third page of Exhibit P1 complaint and submitted that there is no civil dispute pending in respect of rooms having door Nos.582 and 583 in Division No.1 which concededly belongs to the petitioner. The grievance of the petitioner was that the authorities of the Panchayat have made false entries in the property tax assessment register pertaining to those two rooms. This is a grievance coming within the domain of the Ombudsman only and not the civil Court. The learned counsel for the Panchayat, per contra, would submit that essentially the prayer which was highlighted before the Ombudsman was the prayer based on the grievance of the petitioner in the context of assessing the entire room No.584 in the name of the 3rd respondent. The claim of the petitioner that he is having ownership over a portion of Room No.584 is essentially a civil dispute between him and the 3rd WPC.5057/08 -3- respondent and the Ombudsman was justified in relegating the petitioner to the civil Court. 4. Having considered the rival contentions, I am of the view that the learned Ombudsman was certainly justified in declining to entertain the dispute between the parties in respect of Room No.584 in Division No.1. But, it appears to me that the Ombudsman did not notice the grievance voiced by the petitioner regarding the alleged false entries pertaining to Room Nos.582 and 583. But, at the same time, I am not inclined to relegate the parties back to the Ombudsman to have the above aspect of the complaint reconsidered. I am of the view that this grievance of the petitioner would receive the attention of the Panchayat first. Accordingly, even though I decline to grant the reliefs sought for in the writ petition, I direct the Panchayat to entertain a specific complaint to be submitted by the petitioner before the Secretary of the Panchayat in the context of the petitioner's grievance regarding the alleged false entries in the property tax register relating to Room Nos.582 snd 583 after hearing the petitioner and to take decision on that complaint. If a complaint is submitted by the petitioner within three weeks from today, the Panchayat will hear WPC.5057/08 -4- and take a decision on the complaint at the earliest and at any rate within one month thereafter. The writ petition is disposed of as above. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE. dsn