IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN MONDAY, THE 19TH DECEMBER 2011 / 28TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 WP(C).No. 36074 of 2004(T) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------- THANKAPPAN, KONNAYIL, VAZHAKKAL LAKSHAM VEEDU COLONY, KANJIRAPPALLY TALUK, ERUMELI. BY ADV. SRI.P.HARIDAS RESPONDENT(S): -------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, KOTTAYAM. 2. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KOTTAYAM. 3. TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, KANJIRAPPALLY. 4. ERUMELI GRAMA PANCHAYATH REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,ERUMELI P.O.,KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 5. KUNJUMOHAMMED, KULANGARA (KAVUNKAL), VAZHAKKALA, ERUMELI VILLAGE, KANJIRAPPALLY TALUK, KOTTAYAM. R4 BY ADV. SRI.T.I.ABDUL SALAM R5 BY ADV. SRI.SERGI JOSEPH THOMAS SRI.JINO ANTONY SRI.JYOTHI S.MENON THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: BKA WP(C).No. 36074 of 2004(T) APPENDIX PETITIONER'(S) EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE PRESIDENT, ERUMELI GRAMA PANCHAYATH DATED 03.03.2004. EXT.P2 COPY OF THE REPORT FILED BY AN OFFICER FROM THE PANCHAYATH INSPECTED THE PROPERTY. EXT.P3 COPY OF THE PETITION SUBMITTED BEFORE THE SECOND RESPONDENT. EXT.P4 COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY, ERUMELI GRAMA PANCHAYATH DATED 17.03.2004. EXT.P5 COPY OF THE ORDER NO.2168/04/F/Ldis DATED 29.06.2004. EXT.P6 COPY OF THE LETTER NO.15-5838/04 DATED 14.10.2004 TO THE VILLAGE OFFICER, ERUMELI FROM TAHSIDAR, KANJIRAPPALLY. RESPONDENT'(S) EXHIBITS: EXT.R5(a) COPY OF the PLAINT IN OS NO.167/2004 ON THE FILES OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, KANJIRAPPALLY. EXT.R5(b) COPY OF THE INJUNCTION ORDER AND REPORT OF THE AMEEN BEFORE THE MUNSIFF COURT, KANJIRAPPALLY DATED 04.08.04 EXT.R5(c) COPY OF THE COMMISSION REPORT AND SKETCH DATED 04.08.04 BEFORE THE MUNSIFF COURT, KANJIRAPPALLY. //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE BKA K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------------------ WP(C) NO. 36074 OF 2004 ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 19th day of December, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner, a resident of a Harijan Colony, filed the above writ petition claiming that the 5th respondent, who is residing on the side of the road leading to the Harijan Colony, has filled up the sewage canal on the side of the public road, thus, flooding the colony with waste water. The petitioner by the above writ petition, specifically sought the implementation of Exts.P5 and P6 orders passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer and Tahsildar. Even in the writ petition, the petitioner had admitted to the fact that the 5th respondent has filed a suit before the Munsiff's Court, Kanjirappally against the petitioner and his family members for prohibitory injunction. This Court had, by order dated 26.05.2005, directed the 2nd respondent to look into the grievances of the petitioner and if found to be correct, directed the 2nd respondent to ensure that the obstruction to WP(C) NO. 36074 OF 2004 ..2.. the water channel is removed. It was also specifically observed in the order that any action taken pursuant to the said order would be subject to the orders of the competent Civil Court. 2. When the matter was taken up, it was submitted on behalf of the 5th respondent that the suit filed by the 5th respondent numbered as OS No: 157/2004 before the Munsiff's Court, Kanjirappally, has been decreed and a permanent prohibitory injunction has been passed restraining the respondent from trespassing into the plaint schedule property and taking forcible possession of any portion of the property and from carving a drainage channel through the plaint schedule property. The counsel for the 5th respondent would also invite me to paragraph 15 and 18 of the judgment, wherein the competent Civil Court has found that the order of the Tahsildar and RDO are devoid of proper reasons and that the existence of the disputed WP(C) NO. 36074 OF 2004 ..3.. channel has not been proved. The appeal filed by the defendants therein has also been dismissed by the Sub Court, Pala in AS No:53/2006 by judgment dated 07.03.2008. The petitioner herein is the 1st defendant in the suit and the 1st appellant in the appeal referred to earlier. In the circumstances of the competent Civil Court having taken a decision in the matter, the decree passed as confirmed in appeal, settles the issue. The above writ petition is hence liable to be dismissed and I do so without any order as to costs. K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE bka/-