IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.J.CHELAMESWAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 26TH MAY 2011 / 5TH JYAISHTA 1933 WA.No. 997 of 2009() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.10708/2009 Dated 01/04/2009 .................... APPELLANT(S): PETITIONER ------------------------ ILLIKKAL ANTHRU, ILLIKKAL HOUSE, P.O.KUTHUPARAMBA, KANNUR DIST. BY ADV. SRI.P.M.PAREETH SRI.MOHAMMED SHAMEEL RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. KUTHUPARAMBA MUNICIPALITY REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL OFFICE, P.O. KUTHUPARAMBA, KANNUR DIST. 2. SECRETARY KUTHUPARAMBA MUNICIPALITY, MUNICIPAL OFFICE, P.O. KUTHUPARAMBA, KANNUR DIST. 3. T.V.SAHADEVAN, S/O. KUNHIRAMAN, HO.NO.3/130, EDAKKAD PANCHAYATH, CHALA.P.O., KANNUR DIST. ADV. SRI.P.V.SURENDRANATH FOR R1 & 2 SMT.BINDUMOL JOSEPH FOR R1 & 2 SRI.P.P.RAMACHANDRAN FOR R3 THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/05/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J.Chelameswar, C.J. & Antony Dominic, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.A.No. 997 OF 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 26th day of May, 2011 JUDGMENT Antony Dominic, J. The unsuccessful petitioner in W.P.(C) No.10708 of 2009 is the appellant. The writ petition was filed by him challenging Ext.P11, the proceedings of the Secretary of the respondent Municipality rejecting the application made by the appellant for correction of the records of the Municipality regarding the ownership of a building. 2. In Ext.P11 proceedings of the Secretary it is stated that the 3rd respondent who is described by the appellant as his tenant has raised a claim of title in respect of the building and it was therefore that the Secretary has declined to accept the request of the appellant. The learned Judge, in our view, has rightly concluded that there is a dispute regarding title of the building in question and that such a dispute cannot be decided by the Secretary of the Municipality and that if at all the appellant is aggrieved, his remedy is to WA No. 997 of 2009 -:2:- get the dispute resolved by approaching the appropriate Civil Court. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant referred to Ext.P11 and according to the appellant, the 3rd respondent himself has conceded the appellant's title in a statement given by him before the Secretary to the Municipality. In our view, it is for the appellant to prove Ext.P11, and the facts stated therein, in a Civil Suit claiming title and such an exercise cannot be undertaken in a proceedings either before the Secretary of the Municipality or before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. The learned Judge has rightly dismissed the writ petition and we see no reason to interfere with the judgment. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. J.Chelameswar, Chief Justice. Antony Dominic, Judge. ttb