IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN TUESDAY, THE 15TH DECEMBER 2009 / 24TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 32561 of 2009(M) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- LAWRENSIA ADLINE FERNANDEZ W/O. FRANCIS FERNANDEZ, AGE 62 YEARS, RESIDING AT 22/680,FRAN LINE, EDAKOCHI, KOCHI-6. BY ADV. SRI.T.MADHU SRI.SURAJ KRISHNA.B.S. RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR JALA BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE ASST. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY KARUVELIPPADY, COCHIN-5. 3. THE COCHIN CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, COCHIN-11. 4. THE ASST. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, COCHIN CORPORATION, ZONAL OFFICE, PALLURUTHY. 5. ANNIE JOHN RATNAVILASAM PHARMA NEAR KUMABALAM FERRY, EDAKOCHI. ADV. SRI.K.ANAND, SC, COCHIN CORPN. FOR R3 & 4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. --------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 32561 OF 2009 -------------------------- Dated this the 15th day of December, 2009 J U D G M E N T This writ petition is filed aggrieved by the steps taken by respondents 1 and 2 to provide water supply connection to the residence of the fifth respondent. The petitioner objects to the pipe lines being drawn through a pathway over which she claims exclusive right and ownership. 2. The petitioner contends that as the fifth respondent has another access to her residence and that water supply can be given to the fifth respondent's residence from the main road. The learned standing counsel appearing for the Kerala Water authority submits that the pipe line has already been drawn through the disputed pathway to provide water supply to 60 families and that the Kerala Water Authority cannot decide whether the petitioner has exclusive right over the pathway. Sri. K.Anand, the learned standing counsel appearing for the Cochin Corporation submits that the pathway is being maintained by the Corporation for the past several years. 3. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar by the leaned counsel appearing on either side. In my opinion, in view of W.P.(C) No. 32561/09 2 the admitted fact that water supply has been given to about 60 families by laying a pipe line through the pathway in question, the petitioner cannot legitimately complain that water supply connection should not be given to the fifth respondent's residence through that pathway. Further, the stand of the Cochin Corporation is that the pathway is being maintained by the Corporation for the past several years and that the pathway was also surfaced by the Corporation a few years back. In such circumstances, as the pathway in question is used by the public at large, I find no reason to grant relief prayed for by the petitioner. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed with the observation that providing water connection to the fifth respondent’s residence through the disputed pathway will not confer any title on the fifth respondent over the said pathway. P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE vps