IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE MONDAY, THE 3RD MARCH 2008 / 13TH PHALGUNA 1929 WP(C).No. 1830 of 2007(P) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ HENRY MATHEW, MALAIPARAMBIL HOUSE, KARIMANOOR P.O., THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGEKUTTY MATHEW RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, P.W.D., THODUPUZHA, THODUPUZHA P.O., IDUKKI DISTRICT. 2. THE KARIMANOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY IT'S SECRETARY, KARIMANOOR P.O., THODUPUZHA. R1 BY GOVT. PLEADER MR.K.J.MOHAMMED ANZAR R2 BY ADV. SRI.SHAJI THOMAS PORKKATTIL SRI.BINU PAUL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE,J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No.1830 of 2007 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated: 3rd March, 2008 JUDGMENT The grievance voiced by the petitioner is that with the intention of blocking a passage which leads to his property, the 2nd respondent-Panchayat has constructed a compound wall around a public well which is vested in the Panchayat. On account of the construction of the compound wall for the present manner, the width of the road which was originally 10 feet has now been reduced to 3 feet. 2. The 1st respondent the has filed a statement wherein it is stated that the property upon which the compound wall has been constructed by the Panchayat is P.W.D. puramboke and the statement relies on Ext.R1(a) sketch prepared by the Taluk Surveyor in this regard. 3. The Panchayat has filed a counter affidavit wherein it is alleged that the petitioner's property is lying behind public well which is vested in the Panchayat. The access to that property was by a narrow road which was not motorable. The petitioner's intention is to widen that narrow road and that is why the petitioner is aggrieved by the construction of the compound wall by the Panchayat around the W.P.C.No.1830/07 - 2 - Panchayat's well. The width of the passage to the petitioner's property has not been reduced at all on account of the construction of the compound wall. 4. I heard the submissions of Mr.Georgekutty Mathew, counsel for the petitioner, Mr.Shaji Thomas, counsel for the Panchayat and Mr.K.J.Mohammed Anzar, learned Government Pleader on behalf of the first respondent. 5. Having considered the submissions addressed at the Bar, I am of the view that this court will not be justified in issuing a writ of mandamus sought for by the petitioner against the Panchayat to remove the compound wall presently constructed and to construct new compound wall in its place. Essentially, the issue raised by the petitioner in this Writ Petition is regarding the width of the access to his property situated behind the public well belonging to the Panchayat. Those are all issues which will have to be settled by a competent civil court after adjudication. I dispose of the Writ Petition without granting the reliefs sought for, directing the petitioner to approach a competent civil court. In the prospective civil suit the petitioner will array the State and the first respondent also as parties. Notice as required under Section 80 of the C.P.C. and the statutory W.P.C.No.1830/07 - 3 - notice envisaged by the Panchayat Raj Act will be issued separately by the petitioner as a prelude for his suit. The Panchayat is reminded that if the civil court ultimately finds that construction of the compound wall has in any way affected the right, title or interest of the petitioner including interest by way of easement on the pathway, the Panchayat may become liable to demolish the constructions. srd PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE