IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE FRIDAY, THE 29TH AUGUST 2008 / 7TH BHADRA 1930 WP(C).No. 25392 of 2008(W) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ MERCY GEORGE, MAMPILLY HOUSE CHATHANGATTY ROAD, PALARIVATTOM PO., KOCHI-25. BY ADV. SRI.R.GIRISH SRI.C.T.JESTIN RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT , LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. EDAVANAKKAD GRAMA PANCHAYAT, EDAVANAKKAD PO., ERNAKULAM, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY 3. DISTRIC T COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM. BY G.P. SRI.BASANTH BALAJI BY SRI.K.I.ABDUL RASHEED (SC) THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.25392/2008 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT EVIDENCING PAYMENT OF LAND TAX IN RESPECT OF THE PROPERTY FOR THE YEAR 2006 - 07. EXT.P1(A): COPY OF TAX RECEIPT EVIDENCING PAYMENT OF LAND TAX IN RESPCT OF THE PROEPTY FOR THE YEAR 20 07 - 08. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE SKETCH ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 11/9/2007 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 29/9/2008 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT. /TRUE COPY. P.A TO JUDGE. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE,J. ------------------------ W.P.(C)No.25392 of 2008 ------------------------ Dated this the 29th day of of August, 2008 JUDGMENT The grievance which the petitioner, a widow, has voiced is that an extent of 6.5. cents of land which belonged to her late husband and presently belongs to her and her children has been taken over without recourse to law by the 2nd respondent Panchayat and that though Ext.P3 petition was submitted to the District Collector, the District Collector has not taken effective action. 2. Sri.K.L.Abdul Rasheed, the learned standing counsel for the 2nd respondent Panchayat would submit that the road in question was constructed by and stands vested with the Ernakulam District Panchayat. The 2nd respondent Grama Panchayat has absolutely nothing to do with the road. The 2nd respondent is not in a position to state one way or the other regarding the correctness of the allegation that the petitioner's property has been utilized illegally for the purpose of construction of the road. He, however, submitted that on considering Ext.P3 WPC.No..25392/2008 2 representation, the District Collector forwarded Ext.P3 to the Taluk Development Committee and that the said committee fixed 2/6/2007 at 10.30 A.M. as time for considering Ext.P3. Notice was given to the Panchayat and to the petitioner regarding the hearing of Ext.P3. The Panchayat alone appeared and the petitioner did not appear. The learned counsel for the petitioner would quickly retort that the petitioner never received any notice from the Taluk Development Committee. Whatever that be, in view of the definite stands taken by the second respondent that the road which is subject matter of the writ petition belongs not to the 2nd respondent but to the District Panchayat, this writ petition, without the junction of the District Panchayat, will fail. The writ petition will stand dismissed. (PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE) dpk