IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE MONDAY, THE 24TH MARCH 2008 / 4TH CHAITHRA 1930 WP(C).No. 8524 of 2008(M) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ MUHAMMAD KUNJU, S/O. AVUKKARUPILLA, KUNDOORAN [THAZHATHANGADI] HOUSE, NEAR MAHILALAYAM JUNCTION, THGOTTUMUGHAM P.O., ALUVA-5. BY ADV. SRI.NAVEEN THOMAS RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE KEEZHMAD GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY, ERUMATHALA P.O., ALUVA. 2. THE SECRETARY, KEEZHMAD GRAMA PANCHAYATH, ARUMATHALA P.O., ALUVA. 3. THE TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, ALUVA. 4. TALUK SURVEYOR, TALUK OFFICE, ALUVA. 5. JOSE GEORGE, S/O. KOCHUVAREED MAMPILLY HOUSE, THOTTUMUGHAM, ALUVA. BY ADV. SRI.JOMY GEORGE, SRI.K.SREESHA KUMAR,B/O THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, J. ---------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO.8524 of 2008 ---------------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of March , 2008 JUDGMENT In this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner challenges Ext.P13 inter alia on the ground that he has already preferred Ext.P11 appeal against Ext.P10 notice, a notice similar to Ext.P13, which had been issued to him by the Secretary of the Panchayat. The issue is whether the petitioner has encroached upon a portion of the road. Ext.P10 was issued to the petitioner on the basis of measurement conducted by the Taluk Surveyor i.e. pursuant to Ext.P5 plan which was given to the Panchayat. The petitioner has sought review of the plan before the Taluk Surveyor. Ext.P6 was issued by the Tahsildar accepting the Taluk Surveyor's plan. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, even as per the measurement it would be seen that the width of the pathway has not been reduced and therefore, the allegation that the petitioner has WPC No.8524/2008 2 encroached into the pathway is not correct. I do not propose to go into the merits of the above contentions. But, I agree with the petitioner, who submits that it was not proper on the part of the Secretary of the Panchayat issue Ext.P13 during the pendency of the appeal. I dispose of this writ petition issuing the following directions; i). The Council of the Panchayat will take up Ext.P11 appeal, hear the petitioner and take a correct decision on the same. It is open to the petitioner during the course of the hearing to request the Panchayat to seek appropriate clarification from the Tahsildar in the light of the review petition filed by the petitioner. It is also open to the petitioner to convince the Panchayat that even on the admitted position there is no encroachment on the road, since width of the road continues to be 2.5 meters. The Panchayat Council will decide the appeal at the earliest and at any rate within six weeks of receiving a copy of this judgment. ii). Till such time as the appeal is decided, Ext.P13 shall not be implemented. In fact, I feel that Ext.P13 is unnecessary since if the decision in the appeal comes to be WPC No.8524/2008 3 against the petitioner, the Panchayat can always implement Ext.P7. Hence, I quash Ext.13. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, JUDGE. dpk