IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR.J.B.KOSHY & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON TUESDAY, THE 6TH JANUARY 2009 / 16TH POUSHA 1930 WA.No. 2500 of 2008() --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.15900/2006 Dated 17/10/2008 .................... APPELLANT(S): ------------------------- 1. R.RAMA IYER, PRIYA GARDENS, MEVALLUR P.O., VAIKOM, KOTTAYAM. 2. E.P. ANANTHALAKSHMI, PRIYA GARDENS, MEVALLUR P.O., VAIKOM, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATHS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE OMBUDSMAN FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE SECRETARY, VELLOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH, MEVALLUR P.O., VAIKOM, KOTTAYAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. MEERA.K. ADV. SRI.DINESH MATHEW J.MURICKEN, SC FOR R4 THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss J.B. KOSHY, Ag. CHIEF JUSTICE & P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ........................................................................ W.A. No.2500 OF 2008 ......................................................................... Dated this the 6th January, 2009 J U D G M E N T KOSHY, Ag. CJ. : The appellants' case is that their lands were acquired for construction of a panchayat road and possession was taken without paying compensation and without recourse to the the Land Acquisition Act. 2. It is contended that there is a constitutional right regarding the property and that without complying with the procedures provided under the law, nobody's property can be acquired forcibly. It is further contended that even if the acquisition is for a public purpose, it can be done only complying with the procedures and paying adequate compensation. Local people cannot encroach upon a private property. Though the appellants/petitioners had approached this court earlier with a petition, this court directed them to seek other remedies available under the law. But the court noticed that there is a panchayat resolution for the construction of the road. In that circumstance, they approached the Ombudsman for Local Self Government Institutions. But because of the statement of the W.A. No.2500 OF 2008 2 Panchayat that they have not constructed the road as alleged, the Ombudsman closed the matter. The main contention of the petitioners is that they were not heard by the Ombudsman. According to the Ombudsman, no evidence was adduced by the appellants. 3. If the appellants' property was not acquired as per the provisions of the law, no road can be constructed through their property and petitioners will be entitled to close the road. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we set aside Ext. P3 order passed by the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman shall hear the matter afresh, after hearing both the parties and considering all the evidence available. Both the parties are allowed to adduce further evidence, if any, before the Ombudsman. The Writ Appeal is disposed of as above. J.B. KOSHY, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. lk