IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 29TH AUGUST 2008 / 7TH BHADRA 1930 WP(C).No. 14709 of 2004(A) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------------- THE CHENGAMANAD GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PUTHUVASSERY, NEDUMBASSERY P.O. BY ADV. SRI.B.RAMAN PILLAI SRI.GEORGE PHILIP SRI.R.ANIL SRI.RAJU RADHAKRISHNAN SRI.ANIL K.MOHAMMED SRI.DELVIN JACOB MATHEWS RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. OMBUDSMAN FOR THE LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. CHANDRAMATHY SREEDHARAN, ALUMCHUVADU, DESOM P.O., ALUVA. 3. SARALA MOHAN, PRESIDENT, CHENGAMANAD GRAMAPANCHAYATH, PUTHUVASSERY, NEDUMBASSERY P.O. 4. DILEEP KAPRASSERY, VICE PRESIDENT, CHENGAMANAD GRAMAPANCHAYATH, PUTHUVASSERY, NEDUMBASSERY P.O. 5. D.P.BHASI, WARD MEMBER, CHENGAMANAD GRAMA PANCHAYATH, PUTHUVASSERY, NEDUMBASSERY P.O. ADV. SRI.MATHEW PAUL FOR R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.14709/2004 APPENDIX PETITIONERS EXHIBITS EXT.P1:- COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DT. 19.6.03 ISSUED FROM VILLAGE OFFICE,KOTTUVALLY. EXT.P2:- COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DT. 19.6.03 ISSUED FROM GRAMA PANCHAYATH, KOTTUVALLY. EXT.P3:- COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DT. 12.4.03 SUBMITTED BY THE IST RESPONDENT. EXT.P4:- COPY OF THE OBJECTION DT. 20.6.03 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P5:- COPY OF THE ORDER DT. 3.3.04 ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS EXT.R2(a):- COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO. 5688 OF 1999 OF THE CHENGAMANADU SRO. EXT.R2(b):- COPY OF THE REPORT IN MADHAYAMAM DAILY DT. 28.11.3003. /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE tss KURIAN JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.14709 of 2004 ---------------------------------------------- Dated 29th August, 2008. J U D G M E N T Ext.P5 order passed by the first respondent is under challenge. As per the said order, the petitioner Panchayat has been directed to provide a small extent of land to the second respondent to enable her to put up a small house. It is seen from the pleadings that the second respondent was not eligible for providing land for housing. As can be seen from Exts.P1 and P2, the second respondent is having property. Therefore, the impugned order is quashed and the writ petition is allowed. KURIAN JOSEPH, JUDGE. tgs KURIAN JOSEPH, J ---------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.14709 of 2004 ---------------------------------------------- J U D G M E N T Dated 29th August, 2008.