IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 14TH JANUARY 2010 / 24TH POUSHA 1931 WP(C).No. 1052 of 2010(F) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- HIDAYATHUL ISLAM SAMAJAM, VADUTHALA JETTY, AROOKUTTY (P.O), ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT. BY ADV. SRI.S.SHANAVAS KHAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. KERALA STATE WAKF BOARD, V.I.P.ROAD, KALOOR, KOCHI-682 027, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER. 2. AROOKUTTY GRAMA PANCHAYATH, AROOKUTTY (P.O), CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 3. THE SECRETARY, AROOKUTTY GRAMA PANCHAYATH, AROOKUTTY (P.O), CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, 4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, HARBOUR FISHERIES ENGINEERING SUB DIVISION OFFICE, THOTTAPPALLY (P.O), ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.M.M.SAIDU MUHAMMED,SC,WAKF BOARD FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.1052 of 2010 (F) --------------------------------- Dated, this the 14th day of January, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner submits that a property belonging to it has been registered as a Wakf property. It is stated that the 2 nd respondent constructed a pathway through the aforesaid property and has now allowed the 4 th respondent to tar the said pathway to make it a road. According to the petitioner, a request was made to the 2 nd respondent to change the alignment of the road, requesting that the road, which is now passing through the middle of the property, be shifted to the boundary of the property, causing less inconvenience to the petitioner. 2. As at present, the road is that of the 2 nd respondent, and it is so stated in Ext.P4 resolution passed by the Panchayat permitting the 4 th respondent to proceed with the tarring of the road. In the communications produced by the petitioner, both from themselves and from the 1 st respondent, I do not see any specific request for change of alignment. Therefore, as at present, there is WP(C) No.1052/2010 -2- no material before this Court to find fault with the Panchayat, in having either not considered the request of the petitioner or having unreasonably rejected the request of the petitioner. Therefore, this writ petition is closed with liberty to the petitioner to move the Panchayat with an appropriate request in the matter. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg