IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM MONDAY, THE 10TH OCTOBER 2011 / 18TH ASWINA 1933 WP(C).No. 21961 of 2011(U) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- MADHAVI, D/O.KOMA, AGED 72, PALLIPARAMBIL HOUSE, AROOR VILLAGE, AROOR MURI, CHERTHALA TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN-688 534. BY ADV. DR.V.N.SANKARJEE RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ALAPPUZHA, PIN-688 001. 3. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN-688 524. 4. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, THYKKATTUSSERY BLOCK, THYKKATTUSSERY, PIN-688 528. 5. THE VILLAGE PANCHAYATH, PERUMBALAM VILLAGE PANCHAYATH, PERUMBALAM, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN-688 570, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY. 6. THE BLOCK PANCHAYATH, THYKKATTUSSERY BLOCK PANCHAYATH, THYKKATTUSSERY, PIN-688 528, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY. 7. THE DISTRICT PANCHAYATH, ALAPPUZHA, PIN-688 001, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY. BY ADV.SRI.K.RAMESH, GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR R1 TO 4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 21961 of 2011(U) APPENDIX EXHIBITS FOR THE PETITIONER : EXT.P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT DATED 19.7.2011 EXT.P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF'S COURT, CHERTHALA IN O.S.NO.237/1989 DATED 31.7.1990. EXT.P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF'S COURT, CHERTHALA IN O.S.NO.630/1990 DATED 24.10.1992. EXT.P4 : TRUE COPY OF THE LAWYER NOTICE DATED 5.4.2010. EXT.P5 : TRUE COPY OF THE POSTAL ACKNOWLEDGEMENT CARD. EXHIBITS FOR THE RESPONDENTS : NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A.TO JUDGE ami/ C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.21961 of 2011 ------------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of October, 2011. J U D G M E N T Averments in the writ petition are to the effect that the petitioner is the absolute owner in possession of 13 cents of property comprised in Survey No.95/9 of Perumbalam village upon which he derived title by virtue of Sale deed No.3300 of 1975 of the Sub Registrar Office, Panavally. Ext.P1 is the land tax receipt relating to the property in question. Allegation is that, during the year 1989, the 5th respondent Panchayat attempted to trespass into the petitioner's property and to cut open a road through the said property, without her knowledge or consent. The petitioner filed a civil suit in which she obtained a decree of prohibitory injunction against the 5th respondent. Copy of the judgment in that case (O.S.No.237 of 1989 of the Principal Munsiff's court, Cherthala) is produced as Ext.P2. It is alleged that, during the year 1990, the 5th respondent again made similar attempts and the petitioner instituted a further suit as O.S.No.630/90, before the Additional Munsiff's court, Cherthala. According 2 W.P.(C).No.21961 of 2011 to the petitioner, that suit was dismissed recording the statement of the 5th respondent Panchayat to the effect that, “no road work is going to be constructed through the disputed property”. Ext.P3 is the judgment in that case. It is alleged that, in April 2010, there was a further attempt from the side of the 5th respondent to violate Ext.P1 judgment and also to violate the undertaking made in Ext.P3 case. Even though the petitioner issued Ext.P4 lawyer notice to the 5th respondent Panchayat as well as to its President, there was no response. It is alleged that, in violation of the terms of Ext.P2 judgment and in violation of the undertaking recorded in Ext.P3, respondents 1 to 4 had trespassed into the property and constructed a road upon a portion of the said property. It is contended that, the construction is made without any authority in a totally illegal manner and such construction is liable to be removed. Therefore, the petitioner seeks direction to the respondents to remove the road constructed through her property. 2. From the facts and circumstances it is evident that, the petitioner is seeking a relief, which is purely civil in 3 W.P.(C).No.21961 of 2011 nature. The allegation is mainly about violation of the terms of Exts.P2 and P3 judgment. If the petitioner has got a case that the respondents have violated terms of the decree or the undertaking made and any illegal construction is done in the property, she has to seek appropriate remedy from the competent civil court. The petitioner is not challenging any administrative decision of the respondent Panchayat, which will attract jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 3. Therefore, I am of the view that, the writ petition is not maintainable. However, remedy available to the petitioner in approaching the competent civil court is left open. 4. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed without prejudice to rights of the petitioner to seek remedy from competent civil court. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, Judge ami/