IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON MONDAY, THE 14TH JUNE 2010 / 24TH JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).No. 15751 of 2010() ------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- AZEEZ KALLUNGAL, AZEEZIYA MANZIL, THAIKKATTU KARA.P.O., ALUVA-6. BY ADV. MR. T.M.ABDUL LATHEEF RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, FORT KOCHI. 3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGIEER, ELECTRICAL DIVISION, ALUVA. 4. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, ALUVA WEST WILLAGE PALACE ROAD, ALUVA. 5. ABDUL LATIFF, CHENNOTH HOUSE, THAIKKATTU KARA.P.O., ALUVA-6. R1, 2 AND 4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. BIJOY CHANDRAN R3 BY MR. P.P. THAJUDEEN, STANDING COUNSEL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P. (C) No. 15751 of 2010 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated, this the 14th day of June, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner has approached this Court with the following prayers: i. To call for the records relating to Exts. P1 to P6 and to issue a writ of mandamus commanding the Respondents 1 to 4 not to pass any order restoring any pathway through petitioner's property shown as the pathway with 1.6 meters width at the northern side of the petitioner's property; ii. To issue a writ of mandamus commanding the 3rd respondent not to draw any line through the petitioner's property shown as pathway in Ext.P1 lying on the northern side of the petitioner's property for the purpose of providing additional connection to the 5th respondent. iii. Any other appropriate, writ, order or direction also may be granted to meet out justice under circumstances of the above case. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, even though an observation has been made by the second respondent in Ext. P6 that the matter is purely a 'civil dispute' between the petitioner and the 5th respondent, the 4th respondent is taking steps to restore the 'pathway' through the property of the petitioner, for which absolutely no competence, jurisdiction or authority is vested with the said respondent in any manner and hence is under challenge; besides the dispute with regard to drawing of the electric lines. W.P. (C) No. 15751 of 2010 : 2 : 3. The learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1, 2 and 4 submits that, the averments and allegations raised by the petitioner with regard to the alleged steps to restore the 'pathway' are quite wrong and misconceived and that the village officer is no way connected with the 'pathway' stated as going through the property of the petitioner; nor is he concerned with the alleged drawing of the electric line. 4. The submission as above is recorded and if the petitioner is aggrieved with regard to the actual rights and liberties over the 'pathway' or in connection with the dispute stated as in existence between the petitioner and the second respondent, it could be got adjudicated by the appropriate forum, in accordance with law. 4. With regard to the objections stated as raised against drawing of the electric line, the learned standing counsel submits that, the application submitted by the 5th respondent for additional electricity connection to the up stairs and the objection raised by the petitioner have been caused to referred to the first respondent, who is the statutory authority to consider and pass appropriate orders thereon. Considering the nature of the relief proposed to be given by this Court, issuance of notice to the 5th respondent is dispensed with. W.P. (C) No. 15751 of 2010 : 3 : 5. In the above circumstances, the first respondent is directed to consider the proposal to draw the electric line for giving additional connection to the 5th respondent, in the light of the objection stated as preferred by the petitioner and pass final orders in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, of course after giving an opportunity of hearing to both the sides, at any rate, within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The issue with regard to the relative rights and interests of the parties concerned over the alleged pathway is left open. The Writ Petition is disposed of. P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE kmd