IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 29TH MARCH 2011 / 8TH CHAITHRA 1933 WP(C).No. 2191 of 2011(Y) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ SARAMMA,PARPATTIL HOUSE,PERUMPILLY, MULANTHURUTHY,ERNAKULAM,PIN-682 314. BY ADVS. SRI.P.P.JACOB, SRI.T.P.GOPAKUMAR. RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. THE MULANTHURUTHY GRAMA PANCHAYATH, MULANTHURUTHY,PIN-682 314,REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, FORT KOCHI-1. 3. THE OMBUDSMAN FOR THE LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTION,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-35, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 4. P.J.JOHN,PALAKKATT HOUSE,PERUMPILLY, MULANTHURUTHY,ERNAKULAM,PIN-682 314. 5. K.V.JOSEPH,KUZHUVELIL HOUSE,PERUMPILLY, MULANTHURUTHY,ERNAKULAM,PIN-682 314. 6. THE VILLAGE OFFICER,MULANTHURUTHY VILLAGE,MULANTHURUTHY,PIN-682 314. R1 BY ADV.SRI.S.SREEKUMAR R2,R3 & R6 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER R4 & R5 BY ADVS. SRI.SUNU P.JOHN, SRI.C.DEVANAND. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss C.T.RAVIKUMAR, J. --------------------------------------- W.P(C)No.2191 of 2011 ---------------------------------------- Dated 29th March, 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioner claims to be the owner in possession of 2.36 Ares of property comprised in Survey No.227/5 of Mulanthuruthy Village. The petitioner was earlier issued with Ext.P9 order by the first respondent. As per the same, the petitioner was directed to remove the alleged obstructions and cautioned that coercive steps would be taken in case of failure. Pursuant to the receipt of the same, the petitioner has submitted Ext.P10 reply. The contention of the petitioner is that she had not committed any encroachment into the puramboke. Subsequently, she has submitted Ext.P13, a detailed objection, denying all the allegations. Exts.P10 and P13 were considered by the respondents and thereafter Ext.P14 order was passed directing the petitioner to demolish the compound wall. The contention of the petitioner is that the said order was passed without affording her an opportunity. I am of the view that the petitioner cannot be heard to contend like that, especially, in the light of Exts.P10 and P13. Obviously, the petitioner was afforded with an opportunity and it is only after consideration of the same that the impugned order was passed. It is challenging Ext.P14 that this writ WP(C).No.2191/2011 2 petition has been filed. There is challenge against Exts.P4, P7, P9, P12 and P14 as well. However, in view of the order I propose to pass in this writ petition, I do not think it necessary to consider the contentions raised in this writ petition on merits at this stage. Indisputably, Ext.P14 is an order against which an appeal will lie under section 276 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act before the Council of the first respondent. Since remedy of statutory appeal is available to challenge Ext.P14 the petitioner is relegated to resort to the said remedy. True that, the order impugned is dated 6.11.2010. Taking note of the fact that the petitioner has challenged the same before this Court by filing this writ petition, it is ordered that in case the petitioner prefers appeal against Ext.P14 within two weeks from today, it shall be treated as an appeal preferred within the stipulated time and the appellate authority shall, then, proceed to consider the same on merits. Needless to say that the petitioner and the contesting respondents viz., respondents 4 and 5 shall also be afforded with an opportunity of being heard. To enable the petitioner to prefer an appeal the respondents shall not take any coercive steps for a period of three weeks. Sd/- C.T.RAVIKUMAR Judge TKS