IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 29TH MAY 2009 / 8TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 13383 of 2009(P) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. ABDUL SHUKOOR, S/O.HANEEFA, MADHIYEZHATHU, KAITHARAM (PO), KOTTUVALLI, NORTH PARAVUR. 2. K.H.MUHAMMED ALI, S/O.HAMEED, KALIPARAMBU KOCHIYAMPARAMBU, KAITHARAM (PO), KOTTUVALLI, NORTH PARUR. BY ADV. SRI.LIJU. M.P SRI.K.K.VARADARAJ RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. KOTTUVALLI GRAMA PANCHAYATH, PANCHAYAT OFFICE, VALLUVALLI, NORTH PARAVUR, REP.BY SECRETARY. 2. BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, NES BLOCK OFFICE, KAITHARAM (PO), KOTTUVALLI, NORHT PARAVUR. BY GP MATHEW VADAKKEL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/05/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B RADHAKRISHNAN, J ........................................... WP(C).NO. 13383 OF 2009 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 29th DAY OF MAY, 2009 JUDGMENT The petitioners claim title to an item of property on the strength of Ext.P1. They plead that first respondent panchayat is proposing to cut open a canal into that property whereby waste water from public source including a Veterinary Hospital is likely to be discharged into the petitioners' property. The second respondent is impleaded on the premise that the Block Development Office is also in the vicinity. The cutting open of a canal or making of a drainage that may lead to the flow of water into the land of the petitioners is essentially something that could generate a dispute which cannot be resolved in writ jurisdiction. 2. Having regard to the identity of the respondents and of the apparent user for the alleged canal/drainage, the issue in hand has to be considered by the competent revenue authority to determine whether there would be any nuisance in the issue in hand and whether the petitioner has a right to prevent the alleged proposal of the first respondent. This will not however WP(C)13383/2009 2 deprive the petitioner of any legal right to seek remedy before the competent civil court if needed. Hence this writ petition is ordered directing that the competent Executive Magistrate having jurisdiction over the area shall, decide the controversy between the parties, so that a satisfactory resolution could be made. Writ petition is so ordered directing the petitioners and the first respondent to appear before the District Collector, Ernakulam for appropriate further directions in this regard. Let the parties mark their appearance within a period of one week from now so that, that authority could consider issuing any interlocutory order, if found necessary. THOTTATHIL B RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE lgk/30/5