IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 5TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 5861 of 2009(C) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------ PRAVEEN KUMAR AGED 48 YEARS, S/O.NARAYANA MENON BLOCK 2 C2 . VB GARDENS, CHUEMBUMUKKU, KOCHI 682 030. BY ADV. SRI.JOHN VARGHESE (VEYKKAN) SRI.VINOD KUMAR.C RESPONDENT(S): ------------------- THE SECRETARY PALLIPURAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH,PALLIPURAM, ERNAKULAM. ADV. SRI.T.A.SHAJI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) No.5861/09 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1: PHOTOCOPY OF PARTITION DEED DT 16.1.1964. EXT.P2: PHOTOCOPY OF LAND TAX RECEIPT DT 3.1.86. EXT.P3: PHOTOCOPY OF DEATH CERTIFICATE OF NARAYANA MENON. EXT.P4: PHOTOCOPY OF REPRESENTATION DT 19.2.2009. EXTS. OR R1 EXT.R1(a): TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DT 10.6.2009 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, PALLIPPURAM. //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE Rp ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 5861 OF 2009 (C) ===================== Dated this the 24th day of February, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioner owns property in Sy.No.195 of Pallipuram Village, where he is residing with his family. According to the petitioner, adjacent to the above property, Panchayat has a property through which there is a pathway, which he was using for his access to his residential premises. It is stated that by long use of the land, he acquired easement right over the said property. 2. While so, the Panchayat started to excavate the land for the purpose of constructing compound wall enclosing the property, which if materializes, will result in blockage of the pathway, which the petitioner was using. It is in these circumstances after making Ext.P4 representation and when there was no response from the Panchayat, he filed this writ petition. By order dated 2/3/2009, this Court directed that construction of the compound wall by the respondent Panchayat shall not obstruct the ingress and egress of the petitioner to his property, and this order remains in force even now. 3. The contention of the Panchayat is that dispute is WPC 5861/09 :2 : purely a matter of civil nature, and if at all the petitioner has a cause of action, that should be agitated before the Civil Court. I am inclined to agree with the counsel for the Panchayat that in the nature of the dispute that is raised, the remedy available to the petitioner is before the Civil Court. However, as rightly pointed out by the counsel for the petitioner, such a civil remedy can be availed of only after serving notice on the Panchayat as required under Section 249 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act and that in the meanwhile, if the compound wall is constructed and the access is blocked, according to the petitioner, serious prejudice will be cased to him. In order to avoid such a situation and as the remedy of the petitioner lies before the Civil Court, it is ordered that the interim order dated 2/3/2009 will remain in force for a period of six weeks from today and in the meanwhile, it is up to the petitioner to seek his remedies before the appropriate Civil Court. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp