IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 24TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 3RD AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 1122 of 2009(H) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- V.B.BIJUKUMAR AGED 33 YEARS, V.K.BALAN, VELLAY VEEDU, EDAVANAKKADU NORTH. BY ADV. MR.MATHEW ABRAHAM. RESPONDENT: ---------------------- THE SECRETARY, EDAVANAKKADU GRAMA PANCHAYATH, EDAVANAKKADU. BY ADV. MR.K.I.ABDUL RASHEED. S.C. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/11/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.1122/2009-H: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE APPLICATION DTD. 29/09/08. EXT.P.1.A: COPY OF THE RECEIPT DTD. 29/09/08. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 16/10/08. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE AGREEMENT. EXT.P.4.A: COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE ROAD. EXT.P.4.B: COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE ROAD. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 06/01/09. EXT.P.5.A: COPY OF THE RECEIPT DTD. 06/01/09. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. Prv. THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P(C).No.1122 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of November, 2009 JUDGMENT The petitioner challenges the construction of a road being done by cutting his property, as evidenced by Exts.P4(a) and (b) photographs. He says that the land in question belonged to his father and only his mother had given consent, though his father is no more. He says the other Legal Representatives of his deceased father had not given any consent and he filed Ext.P2 representation. It is stated that Ext.P3 agreement was entered into on 18.10.2008 recording the decision regarding the construction of the road and the rectification of a culvert. Ultimately, the grievance of the petitioner is that certain portion of the land belonging to him is also being encroached upon. The petitioner could not obtain any interim order in this case which was filed in January, 2009. At this distance of time, the state of affairs would have changed. Not only that, it is not for the writ court to adjudicate on the width of a road or any question as to WPC.1122/09 2 possible encroachment. Without prejudice to the petitioner's right to ventilate the grievance or seek appropriate relief from competent civil court, in accordance with law, regarding any encroachment made by the panchayat or any other person, this writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge. kkb.2/12.