IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 17TH AUGUST 2009 / 26TH SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 20138 of 2008(V) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- K.V. JOHNSON, AGED 28 YEARS, S/O.VINCENT, KUNNAPPILLIL HOUSE, PANAMBUKADU P.O. MULAVUKADU, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. MR.S.SHANAVAS KHAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. THE MULAVUKADU GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE SECRETARY, MULAVUKADU GRAMA PANCHAYATH, MULAVUKADU P.O., ERNAKULAM. 3. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM. 4. TALUK SURVEYOR, KANAYANNUR TALUK. 5. MADHU, S/O.SANKUNNI, PUTHUVALSALATHU VEEDU, PANAMBUKADU, MULAVUKADU P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT 6. SULOCHAN, S/O.SANKARAN, PUTHUVALSALATHU VEEDU, PANAMBUKADU, MULAVUKADU P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 7. DEVAKI, W/O.SUPRAN, PARAYANGATTUTHARA LAKSHAM VEEDU, PANAMBUKADU, MULAVUKADU P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 8. PHILOMINA, W/O.JOHN, PALLICHAN PARAMBU LEKSHAM VEEDU, PANAMBUKADU, MULAVUKADU P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 9. PURANDARAN, S/O.THEVAN, CHEMMANAYATHU LEKSHAM VEEDU, PANAMBUKADU, MULAVUKADU P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. WP(C).No. 20138 of 2008(V) 10. RAVEENDRAN, S/O.SANKARAN, PUTHUVALSALATHU VEEDU, PANAMBUKADU, MULAVUKADU P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT 11. GOPI, S/O.AZHAKESAN, PAZHANGANATTUTHARA LEKSHAM VEEDU, PANAMBUKADU, MULAVUKADU, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 12. GOPI, S/O.APPU, ACHUPARAMBIL VEEDU LEKSHAM VEEDU, PANAMBUKADU, MULAVUKADU, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. R3 & R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.V. MANU. R1& R2 BY ADV. MR.K.G.SARATHKUMAR. R5, R6, AND R10 BY ADV. MR.JIMMY JOHN VELLANIKARAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 20138 of 2008(V) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 29/11/2005 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER AND OTHERS. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE DECISION NO.11 DATED 17/02/2006 BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 25/08/2006 BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO 4TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 10/03/2007 BY THE WARD MEMBER TO 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 21/05/2007 BY THE WARD MEMBER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE DECISION DATED 21/05/2007 BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P7: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 11/04/2007 BEFORE THE OMBUDSMAN BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P8: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 11/09/2007 IN O.P. NO. 403/2007 ISSUED BY THE OMBUDSMAN FOR LOCL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS. EXT.P9: COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 19/03/2008 BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P10: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 23/05/2008 BEFORE THE 1ST AND 2ND RESPONDENTS BY THE PETITIONER. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: EXT.R5(a): COPY OF THE PARTITION DEED NO.3676/93 OF ERNAKULAM SRO. EXT.R5(b): COPY OF THE RELEASE DEED NO.2960/97 OF ERNAKULAM SRO. EXT.R6(a): COPY OF THE PARTITION DEED NO.3676/93 OF ERNAKULAM SRO. EXT.R6(b): COPY OF THE TAX PAID RECEIPT DATED 05/03/99 BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT. EXT.R10(a): COPY OF THE PARTITION DEED NO.3676/93 OF ERNAKULAM SRO. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE rs. THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C).No.20138 of 2008-V = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 17th day of August, 2009. JUDGMENT The petitioner, a beneficiary of a road belonging to the Mulavukadu Grama Panchayat, moved the learned Ombudsman for Local Self Government Institutions pleading that there is encroachment on that road by different persons. Following the direction of the Ombudsman, the Taluk Surveyor conducted a survey and based on that, Ext.P8 order was issued recording that three persons named therein are shown to be encroachers. On the submission of the Secretary of the panchayat that action is being taken against them for removal of encroachment, the matter was closed by the learned Ombudsman. While the petitioner contends that different other persons are also encroachers, the learned counsel for the panchayat states that there are only three encroachers and action has been taken against WP(C)20138/2008 -: 2 :- them. Among the three enumerated in Ext.P8, one namely, Raveendran, son of Sankaran and respondents 5 and 6 herein are represented through counsel who says that there are civil suits between the parties and the land is not Government land and that it is covered by their partition deed. These are not matters which should be resolved in writ jurisdiction. If the petitioner has any complaint that the encroachment has not been completely identified or removed, he has different other remedies, including a request to re-open Ext.P8 proceedings, if needed. The objections of the private respondents to the action taken by the panchayat would necessarily fall for being considered when action is taken for removal of encroachment in accordance with law. Leaving open all such issues, this writ petition is closed without granting any reliefs. THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. Sha/070909