IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 30TH JUNE 2009 / 9TH ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 12935 of 2009(J) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- CHELAKKARA SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK NO. 421, (UNDER LIQUIDATION), CHELAKKARA, THALAPPILLY TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS LIQUIDATOR JOJI PAUL. BY ADV. MR.C.D.DILEEP RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. CHELAKKARA GRAMA PANCHAYAT, CHELAKKARA, THALAPPILLY TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATS, THRISSUR. 3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R2 & R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.MATHEW VADAKKEL. R1 BY ADV. MR.P.VIJAYA BHANU, MR.V.A.JOHNSON (VARIKKAPPALLIL). THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO. 12935/2009-J APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE SALE DEED IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER PERTAINING TO 7.5 CENTS OF LAND IN SY.NO.287/3 OF CHELAKKARA VILLAGE. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING UNAUTHORIZED CONSTRUCTION. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 01/04/2009. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 22/04/2009. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 30/05/2009. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE rs. THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. ============================== WP(C) No. 12935 of 2009 ============================== Dated this the 30th day of June, 2009 JUDGMENT The petitioner is a Co-operative Bank stated to be under liquidation. It complains that the first respondent Grama panchayat is attempting to cut open a drain or other water- course through the property, which the petitioner claims as belonging to it. This is not an issue that could be resolved by the writ court. Yet it is seen that there are two representations of the petitioner, viz, Ext.P3 and P4 pending before the first and second respondents. I do not deem it appropriate to direct the second respondent to take a decision in the matter, since he does not have the jurisdiction to decide on title to property. But among the parties, there could be a conciliation or a settlement of disputes. Therefore first respondent is directed to take up Ext.P3, hear the petitioner's representative and take a decision thereon within a period of three months and Wpc 12935/2009 communicate that decision to the petitioner, so that if the petitioner is then aggrieved, it can agitate the matter before the competent court. All other issues left open. THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE lgk/30/6