IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 2ND FEBRUARY 2010 / 13TH MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 30445 of 2009(A) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- SUNITHA, W/O.JYOTHIBASS, AGED 40 YEARS, VADAKKEKUZHIVILA VEEDU, EZHUKONE MURI, EZHUKONE VILLAGE, KOTTARAKARA. BY ADV. MR.ALEXANDER GEORGE. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOLLAM. 2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, COLLECTORATE, KOLLAM. 3. THE TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, KOTTARAKARA. 4. PRASANNAN, AMBALLOOR VEETTIL, EZHUKONE MURI, EZHUKONE VILLAGE, KOTTARAKARA. 5. BINDU, W/O.PRASANNAN, ABALLOOR VEETTIL, EZHUKONE MURI, EZHUKONE VILLAGE, KOTTARAKARA. R1 TO R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER MR. I.V. PRAMOD, R4 & R5 BY ADVS. DR.K.P.SATHEESAN, MR.K.K.GOPINATHAN NAIR, MR.M.R.JAYAPRASAD, MR.P.MOHANDAS (ERNAKULAM), MR.MATHEW SUNNY. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.30445/2009-A: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE SUIT O.S. NO. 72/09 ON THE FILE OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, KOTTARAKKARA. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE ORDER IN I.A. 394/09 IN O.S. 72/09. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE COMMISSIONER'S REPORT IN O.S. 72/09. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 17/06/09 OF THE R.2. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBIT: EXT.R4.A: COPY OF THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE R.4. BEFORE THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOLLAM DTD. 21/03/2009. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. Prv. THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P(C).No.30445 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of February, 2010 JUDGMENT Petitioner and respondents 4 and 5 are neighbours. Respondents 4 and 5 proceeded to dig a well. That required certain blasting operation, it is contended. The matter reached the Revenue Divisional Officer. Ext.P4 was issued ordering that if any damage is caused to the petitioner's building or property, the same has to be rectified by respondents 4 and 5. This Court initially granted an interim order staying the operation of that order of the RDO. Later that was vacated. Learned counsel for respondents 4 and 5 states that they have completed the construction of the well. Whatever that be, all that is necessary to ensure ends of justice is that the RDO will see that the directions contained in Ext.P4 are strictly obeyed and there is no loss or damage to the property of the petitioner. It is clarified that the RDO will look into any complaint of the petitioner in that regard. The writ petition is ordered accordingly. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge. kkb.04/02.