IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT TUESDAY, THE 12TH AUGUST 2008 / 21ST SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 16262 of 2006(J) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ PALATHIL KIZHAKKETHIL KOYA, 66 YEARS, S/O.MOIDEENKUTTY MOLLA, KUTTIPURAM AMSOM, KOALAKKAD DESOM, TIRUR TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.K.K.MOHAMED RAVUF RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. P.P.KUNHU HAJI, S/O.KUNHAMMED, AMBALAPPADI, MANGALAM HOUSE, KUTTIPURAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. KORATH THAZHATHIL ABDU, AGED 72 YEARS, S/O.CHEKKUTTY, KUTTIPPURAM AMSOM DESOM, TIRUR TALUK. 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, TIRUR. BY ADV. SRIC.M.MOHAMMED IQUABAL FOR R2 SRI.T.KRISHNAN UNNI (SR.) FOR R1 R3 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. GIKKU JACOB THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXTS: EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF DOCUMENT NO.627/1984 OF SRO, KUTTIPPURAM. EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF O.S.NO.286 OF 2005 OF THE MUNSIFF COURT. EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF WRITTEN STATEMENT. EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF NOTICE ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT. EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF OBJECTION FILED BY THE PETITIONER. RESPONDENTS' EXTS: EXT.R2(a): TRUE COPY OF COMPLAINT FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT BEFORE THE R.D.O. DT.1.8.2005. EXT.R2(b) TRUE COPY OF PETITION FILED BEFORE THE R.D.O. DT.3.9.2005. EXT.R2(c) TRUE COPY OF COMMISSION REPORT IN O.S.286/05 OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, TIRUR DT. 22.11.2005. /TRUE COPY/ R. BASANT, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.C.No. 16262 of 2006 J - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 12th day of July, 2008 JUDGMENT The petitioner, on receipt of Ext.P4 notice from the Revenue Divisional Officer, has come before this Court to quash the proceedings initiated under Ext.P4 invoking the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. 2. According to the petitioner, there is a dispute between him and respondents 1 and 2 about a right of way and obstruction of a water channel. The civil court is seized of that dispute. In the civil suit it is submitted that the respondents have no claim that there is any public right involved in respect of the way in question or the water channel. 2. During the pendency of the proceedings before the civil court to steal a march over the petitioner, the respondents have allegedly filed a petition before the R.D.O., Tirur and the R.D.O. had issued Ext.P4, to which Ext.P5 objection has also been filed. No further orders have been passed by the R.D.O. It is at this stage that the petitioner has come to this Court raising a W.P.C.No. 16262 of 2006 2 grievance that the Sub Divisional Magistrate is about to initiate proceedings under Section 133 Cr.P.C. against him. At the moment and with the available inputs, there is nothing to infer that any proceedings under Section 133 Cr.P.C. is about to be initiated against the petitioner. To Ext.P4 notice the petitioner has already submitted Ext.P5 reply. If the incumbent in exercise of his jurisdiction as S.D.M. under Section 133 Cr.P.C. were to pass any conditional order, then and then alone the petitioner can be said to have even a reason to raise objections. At the moment and with the available inputs, Ext.P5 reply having already been given to Ext.P4, I find no reason whatsoever to issue any direction under Article 226 of the Constitution or under Section 482 Cr.P.C. against the respondents. If any conditional order under Section 133 Cr.P.C. is passed against the petitioner, needless to say, his right to challenge the same in accordance with law shall remain unfettered by the dismissal of this writ petition. This Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed with the above observations. (R. BASANT) tm Judge W.P.C.No. 16262 of 2006 3