IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON MONDAY, THE 14TH MARCH 2011 / 23RD PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 3119 of 2011(L) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------ K.A.ABDUL JABBAR, KAKKANADU VEETTIL, KODIMATHA KARA, KOTTAYAM VILLAGE, NOW R/AT KOLLIYIL HOUSE,PAY BAZAR,ERIYAD VILLAGE, ERIYAD POST, PIN 680 666. BY ADV. SRI.P.B.SAHASRANAMAN SRI.T.S.HARIKUMAR SRI.K.JAGADEESH RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOTTAYAM. 2. THE TAHASILDAR, KOTTAYAM 686 001. 3. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, OFFICE OF THE CHIEF ENGINEER, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, PWD BUILDINGS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ROAD DIVISION, KOTTAYAM 686 001. 5. THE KOTTAYAM MUNICIPALITY, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL OFFICE, KOTTAYAM 686 001. R1 TO R5 BY GP SRI. P.N. SANTHOSH R5 BY ADVS. SRI.SIBY MATHEW SRI.PHILIP J.VETTICKATTU SRI.B.PREMNATH (E) THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ------------------------- W.P (C) No.3119 of 2011 -------------------------- Dated this the 14th March, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner has approached this Court for directing the respondents 1 and 2 to assign the 'puramboke' land lying between the property of the petitioner and the road; which grievance has been stated as raised in Ext.P4 application before the 2nd respondent. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the petitioner will be satisfied, if a direction is given to the 2nd respondent to have it considered and disposed of, in accordance with law. 2. The 5th respondent Municipality has filed a statement, pointing out that the property which is lying between the property of the petitioner and the road is a 'road puramboke' and that the same is very much necessary for widening the road; for which, already there is a proposal. It is stated that the P.W.D is reconstructing the bridge and hence the land in respect of which assignment is sought for will be necessary for future road widening and cannot be assigned to private parties. It is W.P (C) No. 3119 of 2011 2 also brought to the notice of this Court that from the materials on record; particularly Ext.P2, the report of the Village Officer submitted before the R.D.O that, one Smt.A.R Radhamony had also filed an application to have the road puramboke assigned in her favour. The learned counsel for the petitioner however submits that, on filing an application before the concerned authorities under the Right to Information Act, it has been brought to the notice of the petitioner that no such application has been filed by Smt.Radhamony and that the property is liable to be assigned in favour of the petitioner, who allegedly does not have any other access to his property, from the road in question. 3. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well. 4. Considering the facts and circumstances, this Court does not propose to decide the assainability of the land or otherwise and the writ petition is disposed of, directing the 2nd respondent to consider Ext.P4 and pass appropriate orders , in accordance with law, of course after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, the W.P (C) No. 3119 of 2011 3 Municipality, Smt.A.R Radhamony and others concerned if any. Appropriate orders shall be passed as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within 'three months' from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE ma