IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 16TH JULY 2009 / 25TH ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 20067 of 2009(C) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. MARAKKARA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY MARKAKKARA KADAAMPUZHA VIA MALAPPURAM DIST. 2. MOORKKATH SAKKENA, MEMBER WARD NO. 12, MARAKKARA GRAMA PANCHAYATH KADAAMPUZHA VIA MALAPPURAM DIST. BY ADV. SRI.JACOB SEBASTIAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. KADAMPIL DEVAKI, D/O. VELAYUDHAN, PILATHARA, P.O.KADAMPUZHA MALAPPURAM DIST. 2. THE OMBUDSMAN FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSITUTIONS, BARTON HILL BUNGLOW, KUNNUKUZHI VANCHIYOOR.P.O., TRIVANDRUM. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P(C).No.20067 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of July, 2009 JUDGMENT The first petitioner is a Panchayat. The second petitioner is a member of the Panchayat. They are aggrieved by an order of the learned Ombudsman for Local Self Government Institutions. According to them, more than two years ago, different persons including the first respondent had surrendered land free of cost for the purpose of a road, however, that the first respondent turned round and moved the learned Ombudsman on allegation that she was forcibly deprived of her property and that she had never consented. Laws in relation to surrender of land is regulated by the Law of Land Relinquishment and the Land Relinquishment Rules. On query by this Court, learned counsel for the petitioner very fairly stated that there are no surrender forms duly signed and obtained from the first respondent either under the Land Relinquishment Act or Rules or even under other enabling provisions, if any, available under the Panchayat Raj Act. Therefore, though the first respondent could be WPC.20067/09 Page numbers characterised as one who does not recognise the public interest, legitimately she is entitled to protect her property and assert that she could be deprived of that only by due process of law. Therefore, learned Ombudsman cannot be found fault with for having ordered that she could put up her boundary and fence of the area in question. That direction of the learned Ombudsman, in law, would not stand in the way of the first petitioner having the property acquired, in terms of the Land Acquisition Act, if it is needed for the public purpose. I do not find any jurisdictional error or legal infirmity in the impugned order of the learned Ombudsman. The writ petition fails. The same is, accordingly, dismissed. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge. kkb.20/7.