IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH JUNE 2010 / 26TH JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).No. 6785 of 2010(W) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- KURAIN, AGE 73 YEARS,S/O.VARKEY KULATHINGAL HOUSE, NADUKANI PO, KOTHAMANGALAM ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. DR.GEORGE ABRAHAM RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, MUVATTUPUZHA. 2. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, PINDIMANA KOTHAMANGALAM. 3. JOHN TOMAS, MARACHERIL HOUSE PINDIMANA PO, KOTHAMANGALAM. 4. MATHAI PHILIP, KUNNATHU HOUSE PINDIMANA PO, KOTHAMANGALAM. ADV. SRI.V.G.ARUN FOR R3 & 4 GOVT. PLEADER SHRI.M.A.ASIF THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C).No. 6785/10. APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS P1. COPY OF THE POWER OF ATTORNEY. P2. COPY OF THE SUIT BEFORE THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, MUVATTPUZHA. P3. COPY OF THE OBJECTION. P4. COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN O.S.NO.210/07. P5. COPY OF THE PETITION BY R3 AND R4 BEFORE RDO, MUVATTUPUZHA. P6. COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE VILLAGE OFFICER. P7 COPY OF THE ORDER OF RDO. DTD.1.12.09. P8. COPY OF THE PETITION DTD.28.1.2010 TO THE RDO. sdk+ ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P.(C).No. 6785 of 2010 ================== Dated this the 16th day of June, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner challenges Ext.P7 order, by which, the 1st respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer, has directed the petitioner not to fill up a canal and obstruct the same causing inconvenience to others using the said canal. According to the petitioner, in respect of the said canal, the petitioner has already obtained an injunction in O.S.No.210/2007 from the Munsiff's Court, Muvattupuzha, against respondents 3 and 4. The petitioner also raises a contention that Ext.P7 order has been passed without affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. The petitioner seeks the following reliefs: “i) to issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to quash Exhibit P7 order issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Muvattupuzha. ii) to declare that the 1st respondent did not have any jurisdiction to entertain Exhibit P5 petition since the same was culminated as per Exhibit P4 judgment.” 2. I have heard the parties. 3. I am of opinion that this writ petition itself can be disposed of by directing the 1st respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer to pass final orders pursuant to Ext.P7 after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and respondents 3 and 4. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the 1st respondent to pass w.p.c.6785/2010 2 orders afresh after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and respondents 3 and 4, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. Till orders are thus passed, the canal shall be maintained as it obtains today by all parties. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge