IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.J.CHELAMESWAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON MONDAY, THE 8TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 17TH KARTHIKA 1932 WA.No. 1907 of 2010 --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WPC.30203/2010 Dated 01/10/2010 .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER: --------------------------- MOJU U.P.,S/O.UTHAMAN, 'NANDANAM',VADAKKKU KOCHU MURI, GOINDAMUTTAOM P.O.,KAYAMKULAM-690527 BY ADV. SRI.T.R.JAGADEESH RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: ----------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA,REP.BY SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 2. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ALAPPUZHA 4. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER(SDM) CHENGANNUR 5. THE DEVIKULANGARA GRAMA PANCHAYAT REP.BY ITS SECRETARY,DEVIKULANGARA, PUTHUPPALLY,KAYAMKULAM-690527 6. N.RAMACHANDRAN,CHANDRA BHAVAN, PUTHUPPALLY VILLAGE,GOVINDAMUTTOM P.O., KAYAMKULAM-690527 R1 TO R4 BY SENIOR GOVT. PLEADER, SRI. BENNY GERVASIS. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J.Chelameswar, C.J. & P.R.Ramachandra Menon, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.A.No. 1907 OF 2010 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 8th day of November, 2010 JUDGMENT J.Chelameswar, C.J. Aggrieved by the judgment dated 01.10.2010 in W.P.(C) No.30203 of 2010, the unsuccessful writ petitioner has preferred this writ appeal. 2. The writ petition is filed with the prayers as follows: “i) to issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ or direction directing the 4th respondent to consider Ext.P2 application for land relinquishment in accordance with Land Relinquishment Act and Rules and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. ii) to direct the 5th respondent Panchayat to initiate action in accordance with Land requisitioning and Acquisition Rules to acquire the land in old Survey No.92/05 (New Sy.No.98/4) of Puthuppally village for widening the public road from Panachoor Junction to Muthalakuzhy. iii) to direct the 5th respondent to consider and take appropriate action on Ext.P13 representation submitted by the petitioner and others within a time frame.” 3. To say the least, we are of the opinion that there is absolute mis-joinder in the cause of action on the part of the WA No. 1907 of 2010 -:2:- writ petitioner. In so far as the first prayer is concerned, Ext.P2 referred to therein is an application filed by a person, who is not a party to the proceedings herein, proposing to surrender a particular piece of property described therein unconditionally to the Government. The case of the appellant is that such an unconditional surrender is required to be accepted by the State to have the surrender effective. We do not propose to examine the accuracy of the stand that whether such a surrender is required to be accepted or not. Similarly, the second prayer is to compel the Panchayat to initiate acquisition proceedings on a particular piece of property apparently belonging to the 6th respondent. The third prayer is for a direction to the Grama Panchayat to consider the representation, covered by Ext.P13, wherein it is prayed that appropriate proceedings for widening a particular road be initiated. 4. The case of the appellant is that the road referred to in Ext.P13 is too narrow and unfit for vehicular traffic. It is the further case of the appellant that the appellant is one of the users of the road and such a road is required to be widened. WA No. 1907 of 2010 -:3:- Incidentally it also appears from the observations in the judgment under appeal that the appellant has a grievance against the 6th respondent who according to the appellant encroached upon a part of the road referred to above; thereby condensing the width of the road. By the judgment under appeal a learned Judge of this Court recorded that the issue of the 6th respondent's encroachment upon the road was the subject matter of a civil suit which eventually ended in favour of the 6th respondent to which suit the 5th respondent Panchayat is a party. The learned Judge also observed that by virtue of the present writ petition, the appellant is indirectly seeking to reopen the issue which was settled in the above referred suit. 5. We do not see any reason to interfere with the judgment under appeal. According to us, the writ petition itself consists a bundle of confusing facts and unstructured pleadings. The appeal is therefore dismissed at the admission stage. However, we make it clear that this Judgment does not prevent the State from initiating appropriate proceedings for the widening of the road in question, if the State independently comes to a WA No. 1907 of 2010 -:4:- conclusion that the public interest demands such a widening of the road. J.Chelameswar, Chief Justice. P.R.Ramachandra Menon, Judge. ttb