IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 29TH APRIL 2008 / 9TH VAISAKHA 1930 WA.No. 972 of 2008() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN RP.388/2008 Dated 31/03/2008 .................... APPELLANT: APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS IN WP/RESPONDENTS IN RP --------------------------------------------------------- 1. V.K.KUNJUMMA,W/O.K.M.MAMMU, KOYAMPARAMBIL HOUSE, PERINGALA P.O.,PIN-683 565. 2. K.M.MAMMU,KOYAMPARAMBIL HOUSE, PERINGALA P.O.,PIN-683 565. 3. JUBIN,W/O.ISMAIL, KOYAMPARAMBIL HOUSE, PERINGALA P.O.,PIN-683 565. BY ADV. SRI.P.ALI RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS IN WP/R-3 REVIEW PETITIONR --------------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY THE LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, KAKKANAD. 3. THE SECRETARY, KUNNATHUNADU GRAMA PANCHAYATH, KUMARAPURAM. BY G.P. SRI. LAKSHMI NARAYANAN. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/04/2008 ALONG WITH W.A.NO.976/08, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT & S. SIRI JAGAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------------- W.A. Nos. 972 & 976 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of April, 2008 JUDGMENT The appellants claim to be aggrieved by a common order passed by the learned single Judge in two review petitions. The writ petition filed by the appellants was disposed of by judgment dated 21/2/08 in W.P.(c) No.6086/08. The writ petition was filed by the petitioners airing the grievance that the Local Panchayat (R3) in the O.P. is going to encroach upon the property belonging to them and construct a new road thereupon. The appellants, it was urged, had submitted Exts.P4 to P7 applications before the Secretary of the Panchayat with copies to the District Collector. The learned single Judge did not choose to examine the genuineness of the grievance; but proceeded to dispose of the writ petition at the admission stage itself with directions to the Secretary of the W.A. Nos. 972 & 976 of 2008 -: 2 :- Panchayat (R3 in the writ petition) to dispose of Exts.P4 to P7 at the earliest, at any rate, within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment in the writ petition. The last sentence in the said judgment read as follows: “Third respondent is informed that annexing property which belongs to petitioners 1 to 3, even if it is for the purpose of road construction, without recourse to land acquisition proceedings or without free surrender from the petitioners will be illegal and he will be answerable for consequences in the event of any such annexation.” 2. That order was passed at the time of admission without notice to all the respondents. Respondent No.3 in the writ petition as also some persons interested in the road but not made parties to the writ petition, wanted the said line to be W.A. Nos. 972 & 976 of 2008 -: 3 :- deleted and applications for review were filed for deletion of the said line. In support of their prayers, they produced documents (Annexures-I to V in the review petition). The learned Judge by the impugned common order granted the said request and the said line was deleted. The appellants/writ petitioners do not challenge the order passed in the writ petition even now. They claim to be aggrieved by the common order passed in the review petitions only. 3. We have considered the order passed by the learned single Judge in the writ petition as also the impugned common order passed in the review petitions. We find that the impugned common order passed in the review petitions does not at all warrant any interference. The learned single Judge had clarified that the appellants have to urge and highlight all the grounds and claims during the hearing to be conducted by Secretary of the the Panchayat in pursuance of the judgment in W.A. Nos. 972 & 976 of 2008 -: 4 :- the writ petition. It has also been made clear that it shall be open to the appellants to approach the competent civil court for redressal of their genuine grievances. We are not, in these circumstances, satisfied that the impugned order passed in the review petition does warrant any interference. 4. These Writ Appeals are accordingly dismissed. Sd/- (R. BASANT, JUDGE) Sd/- (S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge W.A. Nos. 972 & 976 of 2008 -: 5 :-