IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 1ST MARCH 2011 / 10TH PHALGUNA 1932 OP(CRL.).NO. 864 OF 2011(Q) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------------- JOSE, S/O. LATE SCARIYA, AGED 38 ;YEARS, T-2, ANSALS RIVERDALE, EROOR P.O., THRIPUNITHURA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.RAMKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM 682 030. 2. COCHIN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR - 682 030. 3. WORKS MANAGER, COHIN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY, NEDUMBASSERY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 682 030. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI K.J. MOHAMMED ANZAR THIS OP (CRIMINAL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- O.P.(Crl.) No.864 of 2011 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of March, 2011. JUDGMENT Petitioner alleging that respondents 2 and 3 have caused obstruction to a public road being used by petitioner and other members of the locality filed Annexure-1 petition before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Kochi under Section 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Sub Divisional Magistrate obtained report of the Village Officer (Ext.P3). The Sub Divisional Magistrate conducted hearing of the case on 24th, 25th and 26th of February, 2011. But no order was passed, not even the petition was numbered and instead the petition is posted on 8.3.2011 for hearing, it is complained by the petitioner. In the mean time, respondents 2 and 3 are engaged in closing down the (disputed) road making it unusable for the public. Hence this petition seeking direction to the Sub Divisional Magistrate to dispose of the petition as early as possible as provided under law and to direct maintenance of status quo with respect to the disputed road. 2. I have heard learned counsel for petitioner, respondents 2 and 3 and the learned Public Prosecutor who took notice for respondent No.1. OP(Crl.)No.864/2011 2 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has taken me through Ext.P2 and P3 to contend that the disputed road is a public road which is being used by the public. It is pointed out from Ext.P5 photographs that respondents 2 and 3 are engaged in destruction of the said road. Learned counsel for respondents 2 and 3 pointed out from Exts.P3, report of the Village Officer that the second respondent has acquired the land comprised in R.S.Nos.446/5 and 446/20 as per the provision of the Land Acquisition and hence petitioner or anybody else cannot claim any right of access through the property as acquisition is free of all encumbrances. It is contend that even Ext.P3 says that on the public interfering (with the alleged obstruction), obstruction has been removed and access through the said portion has been restored. 4. The request of the petitioner is for an early hearing of the petition presented before the Sub Divisional Magistrate and in the mean time maintenance of status quo . It is not necessary for me to go into the contentious issues raised in this proceedings. That is a matter which the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate has to consider. 5. Having regard to the urgency stated by the petitioner, it is only appropriate that the Sub Divisional Magistrate advances hearing of the petition to a day within ten days from this day with notice to all parties concerned. The Sub Divisional Magistrate may consider the OP(Crl.)No.864/2011 3 petition and pass appropriate orders as provided under law and as circumstances warranted. This petition is disposed of directing the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Kochi to advance hearing of Ext.P1, petition to a day within ten days from this day and take appropriate action in the matter, if any required and as provided under law as expeditiously as possible. It is directed that until the Sub Divisional Magistrate takes up the matter within the said period of ten days, respondents 2 and 3 shall not cause any obstruction to the use of the disputed way by the public. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cl