IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 14TH AUGUST 2009 / 23RD SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 19559 of 2009(L) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- SARASWATHY AMMA, SREERANGOM HOUSE, MATTOM SOUTH MURI, KANNAMANGALAM VILLAGE, MAVELIKKARA TALUK. BY ADVS. MR.RINNY STEPHEN CHAMAPARAMPIL, SMT.ASHA ELIZABETH MATHEW. RESPONDENT: --------------------- MAVELIKKARA MUNICIPALITY, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL COMPLEX, BUDHA JUNCTION, MAVELIKKARA P.O. BY ADV. MR. K. HARILAL. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/08/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.19559/2009-L: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO. 2133/1995 DTD. 27/07/1995 OF S.R.O. MAVELIKKARA. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE PARTITION DEED NO. 935 DTD. 25/03/1985 OF S.R.O. MAVELIKKARA. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE AGREEMENT ENTERED INTO BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND SAID MANOHARAN UNNITHAN & BEENA UNNITHAN. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE COMMISSIONER'S REPORT IN O.S. NO. 337/2005. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF FACTS OF THE RESPONDENT MUNICIPALITY IN W.P.(C).NO.34778/2005. EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 25/01/2006 IN W.P.(C).NO. 34778/2005 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT. EXT.P.7: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 20/05/2006 OF THE R.D.O. CHENGANNUR. EXT.P.8: COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S. NO. 213/2006 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, MAVELIKKARA. EXT.P.9: COPY OF THE REPLY LETTER DTD. 03/07/2009 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. Prv. THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J ........................................... WP(C).NO. 19559 OF 2009 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2009 JUDGMENT Dispute arose as to whether a particular piece of land is a public way of not. The decision on that issue as rendered by the revenue authorities is pending consideration in a civil suit. In the meanwhile, the Municipality proposed to take action to treat it as a municipal road on the basis of the findings of the revenue authorities. This is clearly impermissible from the hands of a public authority. All that could be done is for the Municipality to treat it as a municipal way, at its own risk and without any liability for the petitioner and subject to the final outcome of the litigation in the civil court. It is hence ordered that even if Municipality issues any decision treating the way in question as municipal road, that would be provisional and any action taken by the Municipality to improve the said way will be at its cost and without any liability accruing on the petitioner, if she ultimately succeeds in the civil suit. It is also clarified that having regard to the haste shown by the Municipality, the fastening of any such Wpc 19559/2009 2 liability on the officers and others responsible in the Municipality is left open. Writ petition ordered accordingly, leaving open all other issues. THOTTATHIL B RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE lgk/14/8