IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 4TH MARCH 2011 / 13TH PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 12779 of 2004(U) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ SARAMMA, AGED 40, D/O. VAZHAPILLY PATHROSE, CHEENATIKULATH DESOM, PANAMCHERY VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. THE PANAMCHERY PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PANAMCHERY P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PEECHI POLICE STATION, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 3. BABY S/O. GEORGE, PUTHENPARAMBIL HOUSE, VALAKAVU, P.O.VALAKAVU, THRISSUR DISTRICT. R1 BY ADV. SRI.P.B.SURESH KUMAR R3 BY ADV. SRI. LEO GEORGE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts WP(C)NO.12779/2004 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1 COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER AND HER BROTHER BEFORE THE SECOND RESPONDENT. P2 COPY OF THE RECEIPT FOR RESUMPTION OF EXT P1 DATED 30/3/04. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: R3(A) COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE LOCAL PEOPLE BEFORE THE SECOND RESPONDENT DATED 01/04/2004. R1(A) COPY OF THE ESTIMATE PREPARED BY THE PANCHAYAT IN CONNECTION WITH THE REPAIR AND MAINTENANCE OF THE ROAD, DATED NIL. /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO.JUDGE sts ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ........................................... W.P.(C).NO.12779 OF 2004 ............................................. Dated this the 4th day of March, 2011. JUDGMENT Petitioner submits that the first respondent panchayat is proposing to widen the road which is passing adjacent to the petitioner's property and in that process encroaching the petitioner's property as well. 2. In the statement filed by the first respondent, it is stated that the first respondent has no intention to widen the existing road and that all that they proposed was to maintain the road retaining its existing width. 3. If the proposal of the first respondent is only for doing maintenance work in the existing road, there is no question of the first respondent encroaching into the petitioner's property in the guise of widening the road. In that view of the matter recording the submission made by the first respondent, this writ petition is closed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE. cl : 2 : : 3 :