IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 12TH MARCH 2009 / 21ST PHALGUNA 1930 WP(C).No. 7726 of 2009(I) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- REYNOLD PETER, AGED 60 YEARS, S/O.PETER, RESIDING AT VALIYA VEETTIL, PALLITHODU P.O., CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.C.V.MANUVILSAN SRI.G.SUDHEER (THURAVOOR) RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY IT SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF IRRIGATION, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ALAPPUZHA. 3. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT, SOUTH CIRCLE, PUBLIC WORK OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT, ALAPPUZHA. 5. JENSON, S/O.K.L. ANTONY, CONTRACTOR, KIZHAKKEVEETTIL, KANNAMALI P.O., KOCHI-7. MR.P.N.SANTHOSH, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.7726 of 2009 --------------------------------- Dated, this the 12th day of March, 2009 J U D G M E N T Grievance in the writ petition is regarding the construction of a sea wall. The petitioner submits that a plan was prepared initially leaving a gap of about 60 meters, but that was revised. The revised plan was the subject matter of O.S.No.544/2008 before the Munsiff Court, Cherthala. According to the petitioner, the suit was compromised and on that basis decree was also passed. Pursuant to the decree, the plan was again revised and on that basis, construction was started. It is stated that he is aggrieved by the plan as revised following the decree, and seeking revision of the plan, filed Ext.P7 representation to the District Collector. Orders have not been passed on Ext.P7 and therefore, the writ petition is filed. 2. As already noticed, the revised plan, on the basis of which the construction is now undertaken, has been prepared pursuant to the decree and judgment in O.S.544/2008. Therefore, so long as the decree and judgment stands, the respondents, who are bound by the decree and judgment, cannot revise the plan. In WP(C) No.7726/2009 -2- view of this remedy available to the petitioner is to seek appellate remedies against the judgment and decree rather than filing a representation seeking revision of the plan. Therefore, in this writ petition also, no relief can be granted to the petitioner, so long as the judgment and decree referred to above stands. Therefore, leaving it open to the petitioner to seek remedies against the judgment and decree, this writ petition is closed. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg