IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD JUNE 2010 / 2ND ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 19528 of 2010(M) --------------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- CHETTIYATTIL SUDHAKARAN, S/O.RAMAN, RAYIRAMANGALAM AMSOM DESOM, TANUR P.O., TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT - 676 302. BY MR.JAMSHEED HAFIZ, ADVOCATE. RESPONDENTS: ------------------ 1. THE TANUR GRAMA PANCHAYATH REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TANUR P.O., TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, KERALA- 676 302. 2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, KERALA- 676 302. 3. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM - 695 001. BY MS. K.R. DEEPA, GOVERNMENT PLEADER. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. --------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.19528 OF 2010 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of June, 2010. J U D G M E N T The petitioner herein has approached this Court seeking the following reliefs: a) Issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction directing the respondents to desist from any action of cutting drainage through the petitioner's property. b) Issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction directing the respondents to desist from any action of cutting drainage through the petitioner's property before the completion of the statutory period of Ext.P2 notice. 2. It is pointed out that the petitioner is the owner of 16.5 cents of property comprising in Rs.276/10 of Tanur village. The apprehension expressed by the petitioner is that the 1st respondent Panchayath is proposing to construct a drain through the northern boundary of the petitioner's property. Two suits are pending in the matter as O.S.Nos.138 and 139 of 2010 W.P.(C) No.19528/2010 2 before the Munsiff court, Parappanangadi between the petitioner and another neighbouring owner. It is pointed out that at the instance of the said person, the Panchayath is trying to cut open a new drainage through the northern boundary of the petitioner's property. 3. The petitioner has issued a notice as per Exhibit P2 to the Panchayath and it is mentioned that he is trying to initiate legal proceedings against the respondents on completion of the statutory period of Exhibit P2 notice. It is in these circumstances, the petitioner has filed this writ petition. 4. It is seen that already two suits are pending in the matter. If the petitioner has a grievance that the Panchayath is acting at the instance of any third person, it is upto the petitioner to invoke various remedies under the Panchayath Raj Act. Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the relief as now sought for cannot be granted. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that till filing of a suit, the subject matter of the property has to be preserved without intervention by the Panchayath. The writ petition is not W.P.(C) No.19528/2010 3 one filed challenging any resolution or orders passed by the Panchayath or any other orders passed by other statutory authorities. It is purely a civil dispute. For all these reasons, this writ petition is dismissed. T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR JUDGE smp