IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 7TH APRIL 2008 / 18TH CHAITHRA 1930 W.P(C).No. 9455 of 2008(A) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- UNNIKRISHNA PANICKER PALAPARAMBIL HOUSE, NETTOOR P.O. MARADU VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.B.KRISHNA MANI RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER HARBOUR ENGINEERING DIVISION, MUNAMBAM PALLIPPORT P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 2. THE SECRETARY MARADU GRAMA PANCHAYAT, MARADU, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.S.CHANDRASENAN GOVT. PLEADER, SRI. I.V. PRAMOD THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/04/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. =============== W.P.(C) NO. 9455 OF 2008 A ==================== Dated this the 7th day of April, 2008 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P5, a tender notice issued by the 1st respondent inter alia for development of roads. Petitioner contends that there was a dispute concerning the ownership of the land and two suits were filed. According to him, the suits were OS 31/07 and 1375/06. In the fist suit, the respondent Panchayat was a party and the suit was decreed as per Ext.P1 restraining the Panchayat from entering into C schedule property and from committing any act of waste therein. It is also contended that in the appeals, status quo is ordered in the matter. Petitioner contends that the C schedule to the suit was the pathway in question in respect of which the tender for improvement is now invited. 2. Panchayat on the other hand contends that the suit was filed long after the road was formed and that road in question is one connecting two other Panchayat roads and that the public of the area are using the road as a public road. 3. Irrespective of this, the fact remains that there is a decree of the Civil Court and that the matter is in appeal before the District Collector, WPC 9455/08 :2 : Ernakulam as AS 242/2007 in which also, an order of status quo has been passed by the appellate court. It is not in controversy that as at present the road is not improved. Panchayat also has filed an appeal in which an interim order of status quo has been passed. Therefore, so long as status quo order is in force, it is not possible for the 1st respondent, who has tendered the work at the instance of the 2nd respondent Panchayat, to make development on the road, which was included as C schedule in the AS 242/2007. If at all the Panchayat is desirous of getting the work executed, it is for the Panchayat to move the Civil Court and get suitable modification. 4. Now that the status quo order continues, there will be an order directing that the respondents shall not proceed further with Ext.P5 in so far as the C Schedule in Ext.P1 judgment is concerned except after obtaining appropriate orders from the Civil Court. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC,JUDGE. Rp