IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.J.CHELAMESWAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD MARCH 2011 / 2ND CHAITHRA 1933 WP(C).No. 5803 of 2011(S) ------------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- RAMACHANDRAN, AGED 53 YEARS, S/O.MADHAVI AMMA, SREELAKSHMI, PARAMELPADI, KONDAZHY, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.M.KRISHNAKUMAR SMT.P.R.REENA RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. KONDAZHY GRAMA PANCHAYAT, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY, KONDAZHY, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN-679 106. 2. SARADAMMA, W/O.GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR, AKAMPADATH KEERTHIYIL HOUSE, KONDAZHY, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN-679 106. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J. CHELAMESWAR, C.J & ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ---------------------------------------------- W.P(C).No. 5803 of 2011 ---------------------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of March, 2011 JUDGMENT J.Chelameswar, CJ. This Writ Petition is filed with the prayers as follows: “i. issue a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the 1st respondent panchayat to ensure that no Panchayat land is possessed by the 2nd respondent. ii. issue a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the 1st respondent to consider Ext.P3 representation filed by the petitioner and take action after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and 2nd respondent within such time as may be fixed by this Hon'ble Court. iii. Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the 1st respondent to recover the compensation and loss occurred to the panchayat by the construction of shopping complex in the panchayat land by the 2nd respondent within such time as may be fixed by this Hon'ble Court. iv. issue such other orders, writs or directions as are deemed fit by this Hon'ble Court. v. award cost of this proceedings to the petitioners.” WP(C).5803/11 2 2. The petitioner complains that the second respondent encroached Panchayat property and as a result of such encroachment by the second respondent, a drainage has been blocked, resulting in inconvenience to the petitioner's residential house. Hence this Writ Petition, purportedly in public interest. 3. Now it is well settled that public interest litigation is not a remedy for settling private disputes. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the Panchayat is duty bound to remove the encroachments of the Panchayat property and therefore there is an element of public interest in the writ petition. We do not propose to examine the question whether the Panchayat has a mandatory duty to remove every encroachment on its property or not. But, the fact that the petitioner has a private grievance against the second respondent is sufficient not to examine the issue in public interest litigation at the instance of the petitioner. The Writ Petition is, therefore, dismissed. J.CHELAMESWAR, CHIEF JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE vgs