IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.H.L.DATTU & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 2ND ASWINA 1930 W.A.No. 730 of 2008 ---------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN O.P.14573/1998 DATED 18/01/2008 .................... APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS: ----------------------------------------- 1. JOY VARGHESE, S/O.VARGHESE, AGED 46 YEARS, THODUMEL HOUSE, KALLARKUTTY P.O., KATHIPPARA, VELLATHUVAL VILLAGE, DEVIKULAM TALUK. 2. SARAMMA, W/O.JOY, DO. DO. BY ADV. SRI.T.V.GEORGE RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: ----------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. SUPERINTENDENT ENGINEER, PWD ROADS DIVISION, ALUVA. 3. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PWD ROADS DIVISION, IDUKKI. 4. ASST. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ROADS SUB DIVISION, MUNNAR. 5. T.V.ANIL, THARAKKANDATHIL PWD CONTRACTOR, VELLATHOOVAL, IDUKKI. (WRIT APPEAL AS AGAINST RESPONDENT NO.5 WAS DISMISSED AS PER ORDER DATED 25.08.2008 IN C.M.APPLICATION NO.358 OF 2008 & W.A.NO.730 OF 2008) W.A NO.730 OF 2008 - 2 - 6. DISTRICT OFFICER, GEOLOGICAL AND MINING DEPARTMENT, DISTRICT OFFICE, MUTHALAKODAM, THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI. R1 TO R4 & R6 BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.K.MEERA THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: H.L.DATTU, C.J. & A.K.BASHEER, J. ------------------------------------------- W.A.No.730 of 2008 ------------------------------------------ Dated, this the 24th day of September, 2008 JUDGMENT H.L.Dattu, C.J. This writ appeal is directed against the orders passed by the learned Single Judge in O.P.No.14573 of 1998 dated 18th January, 2008. (2) Petitioners have filed the original petition, inter alia, alleging that there is indiscriminate removal of earth/soil by the 5th respondent on the oral directions issued by respondents 2 to 4 for the purpose of widening of Adimaly – Vellathooval PWD Road. (3) Petitioners are in possession of a property having an extent of 1 acre and 14 cents with a residential building and it appears that the property is situated in a hilly area. The PWD Road is lying in a lower level of about 12 metres and it is alleged that for the purpose of widening of the road the earth/soil from the property belonging to the State Government is being removed. It is further alleged that because of the indiscriminate and unscientific manner adopted by the respondents for removal of soil, there is possibility of landslide in the property of the petitioners to a width of 20 metres and length of 65 metres and thereby causing extensive damage to their property and also threat to the life of the petitioners and their family members. It is further stated that 8 yielding WA.No.730 of 2008 2 coconut trees, 12 arecanut trees, 35 coco plants, 2 cashewnut trees, 2 mango trees and 25 pepper vines have been fallen down in addition to the damage caused to the petitioners' residential building and other structures. It is further alleged that if the fallen earth is removed it would accelerate and cause further landslide. (4) The main prayer in the writ petition was to direct respondents 1 to 5 not to remove the fallen earth and further to direct the respondents to construct a retaining wall on the southern boundary of the petitioners' property and also to direct the respondents to give adequate and reasonable compensation to the petitioners for the so-called loss caused to their property. (5) The learned Single Judge realising that the assertions made by the petitioners are all disputed facts and the same requires to be decided in a forum which could record the evidence, has relegated the petitioners to approach the civil court for appropriate reliefs. (6) We have carefully perused the petition averments and also the prayers in the writ petition. The learned Single Judge, in our opinion, has rightly observed in his orders that what is pleaded by the petitioners are all disputed facts and the writ court is not expected to resolve disputed facts in order to arrive at a conclusion for granting the reliefs sought for by the petitioners. Keeping this settled legal position in WA.No.730 of 2008 3 view, the learned Single Judge, in our opinion, has rightly relegated the petitioners to approach the civil court for appropriate reliefs. (7) In that view of the matter, we do not see any error in the orders passed by the learned Single Judge which would call for our interference in appeal. Therefore, the writ appeal requires to be rejected and it is rejected. (8) Consequently, I.A.No.470 of 2008 stands rejected. Ordered accordingly. (H.L.DATTU) CHIEF JUSTICE (A.K.BASHEER) JUDGE vns