IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN SATURDAY, THE 23RD MAY 2009 / 2ND JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 12436 of 2009(Y) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- G.RAMDAS, KATHALIKKAD HOUSE, VAKKOM.P.O., VIA KADAKKAVOOR, TRIVANDRUM. BY ADV. MR.SIBY MATHEW MR.PHILIP J.VETTICKATTU MR.B.PREMNATH (E) RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. THE VAKKOM GRAMA PANCHAYATH, VAKKOM.P.O. TRIVANDRUM. REP. BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KADAKKAVOOR POLICE STATION, KADAKKAVOOR, TRIVANDRUM. 3. THE CIRCLE INPSPECTOR OF POLICE, KADAKKAVOOR, ATTINGAL TRIVANDRUM. 4. KRISHNANKUTTY MOHANAN, VADAYIL VEETTIL, S.B. BHAVAN, NEAR KATHALIKKAD, VAKKOM.P.O., KADAKKAVOOR, TRIVANDRUM. 5. LEELA, W/O. MOHANAN, VADAYIL VEETTIL, S.B. BHAVAN, NEAR KATHALIKKAD, VAKKOM.P.O., KADAKKAVOOR, TRIVANDRUM. 6. THAMPI, VADAYIL VEETTIL VAKKOM.P.O., KADAKKAVOOR, TRIVANDRUM. 7. VALSALA, W/O. THAMPI, VADAYIL VEETTIL, VAKKOM.P.O., KADAKKAVOOR, TRIVANDRUM. 8. UMAKANTHAN, VADAYILVEETTIL, VAKKOM.P.O., KADAKKAVOOR, TRIVANDRUM. R2 & R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.MATHEW VADAKKEN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/05/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Rs/ THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C).No.12436 of 2009-Y = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 23rd day of May, 2009. JUDGMENT 1.Learned Government Pleader appears for respondents 2 and 3. Notice to respondents 1 and 4 to 8 dispensed with preserving their right to move for review of this judgment, if aggrieved. 2.Respondents 4 and 5 were respondents 2 and 3 in Ext.P1 second appeal before this Court. That arose from a suit filed in the Munsiff's Court, Varkala. The petitioner herein was the plaintiff in that suit. By decree of which Ext.P1 is the judgment, this Court overruled the contention of respondents 4 and 5 herein that they had the easement right over a particular piece of land. Respondents 4 to 8 and others have now made a complaint before the first respondent panchayat which, in turn, has issued Ext.P3 proceedings in WP(C)12436/09 -: 2 :- relation to the very same pathway. The petitioner seeks an order preventing such proceedings. 3.It is true that this Court has declared the title of the petitioner to the property that was involved in Ext.P1 second appeal. That declaration of title and possession and the overruling of the defence based on a plea of easement were in a suit which was against respondents 4 and 5 herein and their predecessor in interest. That can obviously bind only on those defendants/respondents and their successors in interest. Therefore, there is no jurisdictional error or legal infirmity in the initiation of a proceeding in the nature of Ext.P3 to nip it in the bud by the issuance of a writ, But, the fact remains that even in Ext.P3, the grama panchayat states that as of now, the alleged way is closed off. Therefore, as of now, any user of the alleged way stands curtailed. 4.The petitioner has filed Ext.P4 objections to WP(C)12436/09 -: 3 :- Ext.P3 notice. It is the prime requirement that the petitioner and the complainants have to be heard and the panchayat has to take a decision in accordance with law with reference to the relevant materials and conclude on Ext.P3 proceedings. Having regard to Exts.P1 and P2 and the statement in Ext.P3 that as of now, the alleged pathway is closed off, this writ petition is ordered directing that until Ext.P3 proceedings are finalized, the status as on today will be maintained. It is clarified that this Court has not expressed anything on merits and all the issues inter-partis are left open. THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. Sha/260509