IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 22ND NOVEMBER 2011 / 1ST AGRAHAYANA 1933 WP(C).No. 15602 of 2011(A) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- JOHNA ISABEL, W/O. MATHEW ELANHIKKAL, ELANHIKKAL HOUSE, 21/1303, NEAR EDAKOCHI VILLAGE OFFICE, KOCHI -6. BY ADV. SMT.M.M.DEEPA SRI.K.C.SANTHOSHKUMAR SMT.ANUPAMA JOHNY RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------- THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, FORT KOCHI - 682 006. *ADDL.R2. THE SECRETARY, KOTHAKULANGARA SASTRA KSHETHRA UPADESAKA SAMITI, KOCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD, PALLURITHI P.O, KOCHI-6 (*ADDL.R2 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 2/11/11 IN IA 9169/11) ADV. SR.GOVT.PLEADER SRI.JOSEPH GEORGE SRI.T.K.RAJESHKUMAR FOR R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.15602/11 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF SKETCH EVIDENCING THE LOCATION OF THE RESIDENTIAL PLOT AS WELL AS TE LIE OF THE ROAD. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 21.1.11 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE RESPONDENT. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 7.3.11 SUBMITTED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, EDAKOCHI TO THE RESPONDENT. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE INTIMATION DT 8.4.11 FROM THE RESPONDENT ADDRESSED TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P5: PHOTOGRAPHS (SIX IN NUMBERS) EXT.P6: TRUE COPY OF THE TITLE DEED DT 12.1.1977 BEARING REGISTRATION NO.94/77 OF SUB REGISTRAR OFFICE, KOCHI. EXT.P7: TRUE COPY OF THE TITLE DEED DT 3.4.1978 BEARING RGISTRATION NO.939/78 OF SUB REGISTRAR OFFICE, KOCHI. EXHIBITS OF R2 EXT.R2(a): A TRUE COPY OF THE TITLE DEED NO.241/1975 EXT.R2(b): A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED TO THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM DATED 31.1.2011. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Rp ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 15602 OF 2011 ===================== Dated this the 22nd day of November, 2011 J U D G M E N T Petitioner claims to be the owner of a property having an extent of 38 cents situated in Sy.No.975/1 of Palluruthy Village. According to the petitioner, through the southern boundary of the property, there is a public road leading to Kothakulangara Sastha Temple. The case of the petitioner is that she had erected two gates on her compound wall on the southern side and that this was done in January, 2011. It is stated that the respondents put up two concrete lamps in front of the gates virtually blocking the vehicular access to the plot through the gates in question. It is also stated that subsequently they planted coconut saplings in the road margin to make sure that the petitioner is completely prevented from using the public road as a means of access. She thereupon made Ext.P2 complaint to the Revenue Divisional Officer and the RDO obtained Ext.P3 report to the effect that based on the documents produced, the issue can be considered. However, the RDO passed Ext.P4 communication dated 8/4/2011 taking the view that the issue is a civil dispute and the petitioner WPC No. 15602/11 :2 : will have to approach the Civil Court for its resolution. It is aggrieved by Ext.P4, the writ petition has been filed. 2. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the claim of the petitioner is a public way remedy and not any civil remedy and that the RDO, who has been vested powers under the Cr.P.C should have exercised such powers. 3. On the other hand, in the counter affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent, the Secretary of the Temple Samithi, the contention raised is that the property of the temple included portion through which the road is passing through and it was purchased by document No.241/1975. According to them, subsequently, the road portion alone was surrendered to the Corporation leaving their private property intact on either side of the road. It is submitted that, on both sides of the road, yielding coconut trees are still available and that the usufructs from these coconut trees are taken by the Temple committee only. It is also submitted that boards have been fixed declaring that the property belongs to the temple. It is the case of the respondents that recently the petitioner fixed the gates to gain access to the WPC No. 15602/11 :3 : private property of the temple and through the road, and that, such attempt of the petitioner was totally unjustified. 4. Essentially therefore, the dispute between the parties will boil down to the question as to whether the road is a public road and the property on either side of the road is a private property and whether the road portion alone was surrendered to the Corporation. Such a dispute is certainly a dispute of civil nature and its resolution can be done only by a Civil court. The RDO, who has the powers to remove obstructions as contemplated under Section 133 is not expected to resolve such civil disputes. In that view of the matter, the view taken by the RDO in Ext.P4 cannot be said to be unjustified warranting interference by this Court. Therefore, leaving it open to the petitioner to get her rights adjudicated before the Civil Court, the writ petition is disposed of. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp