IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR THURSDAY, THE 26TH JUNE 2008 / 5TH ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 18743 of 2005(F) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ T.RAGHAVAN, AGED 62 YEARS, S/O. PACHUKUTTY, PANNIKOTTU AMSOM, KUNDAYI DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.P.S.SREEDHARAN PILLAI SRI.K.B.SAJEESH SRI.P.GOPINATH SRI.C.S.SUNIL RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE SECRETARY, NARIKUNNI GRAMA PANCHAYATH, P.O. NARIKUNNI, PIN CODE-673 585. 2. THADAPPARAMBIL BALAN, S/O. NARAYANI, THADAPPARAMBIL HOUSE, PANNIKOTTU AMSOM, KUNDAYI DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK. ADDL. RESPONDENT: 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KOZHIKODE. (ADDL. RESPONDENT IS IMPLEADED VIDE JUDGMENT.) BY ADV. SRI.V.N.RAMESAN NAMBISAN FOR R1 R3 BY G.P. SMT.SMITHA SUKUMARAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT OF THE ADDL. MUNSIFF'S COURT, KOZHIKODE-I IN O.S. NO.716/2002 DT.15.6.2004. P2: TRUE COPY OF SKETCH PREPARED BY THE ADVOCATE-COMMISSIONER. P3: TRUE COPY OF NOTICE DT.22.12.2004 ISSUED BY R1 TO THE PETITIONER. P4: TRUE COPY OF REPLY DT.29.1.2005 SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER BEFORE R1. P5: TRUE COPY OF RECEIPT ISSUED BY R1 PANCHAYAT TO THE PETITIONER. P6: TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DT.1.4.2005 IN WPC NO.10871/2005 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. P7: TRUE COPY OF NOTICE DT.4.5.2005 ISSUED BY R1 PANCHAYAT TO THE PETITIONER. P8: TRUE COPY OF POSTAL COVER IN WHICH EXT.P7 ENCLOSED. TRUE COPY PA TO JUDGE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. .................................................................... W.P.(C) No.18743 of 2005 .................................................................... Dated this the 26thday of June, 2008. JUDGMENT The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kozhikode is impleaded as additional third respondent. 2. The case of the petitioner is that the compound wall proposed to be constructed by him is over the side of his property and there is already a mud wall which he wants to replace with laterite stone wall. Counsel for the Panchayat submitted that in the course of construction petitioner wants to block public right of way which is enjoyed by large number of people of the area. The petitioner obviously has no right to block public right of way. However, the local people or Panchayat cannot convert the pathway into a road without acquiring the land and compensating the petitioner. In the circumstances, W.P. is disposed of directing the additional third respondent to get enquiry conducted and earmark the size of the pathway with reference to neighbouring properties including that of the petitioner and furnish a sketch to the petitioner and also to the first respondent-Panchayat. The Panchayat will grant approval to the petitioner for construction of compound wall over the side of his property in line with the sketch 2 prepared by the RDO who is the authority to determine public right of way or pathway. I make it clear that if the Panchayat is of the opinion that road is required in the place of pathway, it would be open to the Panchayat to consider the same and recommend for acquisition of sufficient extent of land for construction of the road for public use. If the Panchayat recommends, Revenue authorities will acquire the land and permit construction of the road by the Panchayat. The RDO is directed to take a decision and communicate the same within three months from date of production of copy of this judgment by the petitioner. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge pms