IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN TUESDAY, THE 4TH JANUARY 2011 / 14TH POUSHA 1932 WP(C).No. 31807 of 2010(A) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- 1. BINDU SALAM,AGED 34 YEARS, W/O.ABDUL SALAM.E.A, RESIDING AT ELAVUNKAPARAMBIL U.C.COLLEGE PO, ALUVA, ERNAKULAM. 2. ABDUL SALAM.E.A, AGED 39 YEARS, S/O.LATE MEETHIYAN PILLAI,RESIDING AT ELAVUNKAPARAMBIL, U.C.COLLEGE PO, ALUVA,ERNAKULAM. BY ADVs. SRI.M.K.CHANDRAMOHAN DAS SRI.A.M.NASEER RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, S.P. OFFICE,ALUVA RURAL, ERNAKULAM 683 101. 2. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, S.P.OFFICE, ALUVA 683 101. 3. THE STATION HOUSE IN CHARGE, ALUVA POLICE STATION,ALUVA,ERNAKULAM 683 101. 4. KARUMALLOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH,REP.BY ITS SECRETARY,KARUMALLOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH, KARUMALLOOR PO, ALUVA 683 511, ERNAKULAM. 5. ASHRAF ALI, S/O.LATE SAIDU MUHAMMED ALUVA,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT 683 101. R1 - R3 BY GOVT.PLEADER SMT.CHARISHMA R4 BY ADVS. SRI.NAGARAJ NARAYANAN SRI.SAIJO HASSAN SRI.PRATHAP PILLAI SRI.BENOJ C AUGUSTIN SRI.SEBIN THOMAS R5 BY ADV. SRI.P.K.ABOOBACKER(EDAPPALLY) THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs WP(C).No. 31807/2010(A) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1A: COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.2558/03 P1B: COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 01/06/2010. P1C: COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE P1D: COPY OF THE LOCATION SKETCH DATED 28/09/2010 P2: COPY OF THE ORDER NO.A2-2901/8-9 DATED 26/09/2008 TO THE 5TH RESPONDENT. P3: COPY OF THE ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER REPORT DATED 09/12/2008 P4: COPY OF THE ORDER NO.M 1707/09/KC DATED 29/05/2009 P5: COPY OF THE ORDER NO.A2.6306/09 DATED 29/08/2009 P6: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 08/10/2000 IN WPC.NO.26047/2008 P7: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 22/07/2010 IN APPEAL NO.519/2010 BEFORE THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY, TRIVANDRUM. P8: COPY OF THE SERIES OF PHOTOGRAPHS P9: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 29/09/2010 P10: COPY OF THE PERMIT NO.A2/BP/189/2010-11 DATED 06/10/2010 RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: R5A: COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S. NO.413/2010 FILED BEFORE THE HON'BLE SUB COURT, PARUR. /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE svs R.BASANT & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. *********************** W.P(C) No.31807 of 2010 ***************************** Dated this the 4th day of January, 2011 JUDGMENT BASANT, J. Petitioners own property, which lies in the north-south direction. On the eastern side of their property is the property belonging to the 5th respondent. They have a common boundary running in the north-south direction separating their properties. It appears that there is a dispute between the precise location of the said boundary lying north-south separating the property of the petitioner and the property of the 5th respondent. There has been litigation between the parties on that dispute. A.S.No.129 of 2010 is pending before the Additional District Judge, Paravur, it is submitted and conceded. 2. The present dispute is about construction of a compound wall on the northern boundary of the petitioner's property. Beyond the northern boundary, lies the public road. The petitioner wants to put up a boundary/compound wall between his property and the panchayat road. The 5th respondent is raising objections against that. The petitioners have already secured Ext.P10 building permit from the W.P(C) No.31807 of 2010 2 panchayat to construct the compound wall. In view of the objection and obstruction of the 5th respondent, the petitioners are not able to undertake and complete that construction. The petitioners have come to this Court complaining that respondents 1 to 3 are not taking effective action to enable the petitioner to construct the compound wall as permitted by the 4th respondent panchayat in view of the objections of the 5th respondent. 3. The 5th respondent has entered appearance and raised his objections. It is true that northern compound wall which is proposed to be constructed on the strength of Ext.P10 is not one separating the petitioner's property and the property of the 5th respondent. But certainly the point to which the said northern boundary must or can extend on the eastern side will have a bearing on the precise location of the boundary lying north-south separating the properties of the petitioner and the 5th respondent. That question cannot obviously be resolved in this writ proceedings before us. It is up to either party to seek appropriate direction from the civil court in the matter. We need only mention that at the moment, considering the nature of the disputes raised, we are not persuaded to invoke our powers W.P(C) No.31807 of 2010 3 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue any specific directions regarding the manner in which the northern compound wall of the petitioner has to be constructed. The point on the east where that compound wall must end cannot be specified by us now. 4. This Writ Petition must, in these circumstances, fail. We accordingly dismiss this Writ Petition, but make it clear that it shall be for the parties if necessary to seek appropriate direction from the civil court about the precise point where the proposed northern compound wall of the petitioner must end on the eastern side. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE) rtr/