IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 20TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 1ST PHALGUNA 1930 WP(C).No. 4193 of 2009(Y) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. LOBELIA ENGLISH MEDIUM HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL,NAYARAMBALAM,REP.BY ITS MANAGER, MR.MADHAVAN PILLAI,AGED 64 YEARS, S/O.GOPALAN,KANDANGANATTU HOUSE, NJARAKKAL P.O.,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 2. THE PRINCIPAL, LOBELIA ENGLISH MEDIUM HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL,NAYARAMBALAM. BY ADV. SRI.T.N.SURESH SRI.ROY THOMAS RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY THE SECRETARY, LOCAL ADMINISTARATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. NAYARAMBALAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY, NAYARAMBALAM. 3. LAISY,W/O.ABRAHAM, AGED 68 YEARS, ELANJIKKAL HOUSE, NAYARAMBALAM P.O. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.K.R.DEEPA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P(C).No.4193 of 2009 ================== Dated this the 20th day of February, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioners are, the manager and the principal of a higher secondary school. The school is situated in 56 cents of land. According to the petitioners, there is a canal from the school property flowing to the Panchayat puramboke canal through the 3rd respondent's property. The petitioners allege that in 2005 the 3rd respondent obstructed free flow of water through the canal and Ext.P1 decision was taken by the 2nd respondent-Panchayat, pursuant to which, with the aid of the police, obstruction was removed at the instance of the petitioners. Thereafter, the 3rd respondent filed a suit without challenging Ext.P1 order seeking injunction against the petitioners from discharging water through the canal and again prevented free flow of water through the canal. The petitioners again approached the 2nd respondent. However, the 2nd respondent declined to interfere on the reason that a civil suit in respect of the said dispute is pending and Ext.P3 communication was issued to the 2nd petitioner in that regard. Against Ext.P3, the petitioners approached this Court and this Court passed Ext.P4 judgment directing the 2nd respondent to consider the grievance of the petitioners in accordance with law. Thereafter, the petitioners filed a fresh representation, Ext.P5, before the 2nd respondent as directed in w.p.c.4193/09 2 Ext.P4 judgment. Although the 3rd respondent filed a review petition against Ext.P4 judgment, the same was also dismissed by Ext.P6 order. Thereafter, the petitioners preferred COC No.1435/2008 against the 2nd respondent for non-compliance of Ext.P4 judgment and Ext.P5 representation. While the same was pending, Ext.P7 order was passed by the 2nd respondent, whereby the Panchayat informed the 1st petitioner that in view of the fact that there is an injunction issued by the Munsiff's Court, Kochi in O.S.No.227/2007, no further proceedings can be taken on the petitioners' application, pursuant to which, the contempt case was closed without prejudice to the right of the petitioners to challenge Ext.P7. The petitioners are challenging Ext.P7 order in this writ petition. 2. In view of the submission that the suit had been disposed of, I directed the petitioners to produce a copy of the judgment in that suit. Accordingly, the petitioners have produced the judgment (Ext.P9) in the said suit, along with I.A.No.2426/2009. From the same, I find that the suit had been decreed and the 1st petitioner has been injuncted from draining water through the 3rd respondent's property on a finding that there is no water way through the 3rd respondent's property from the 1st petitioner's property. The petitioners would contend that despite Ext.P9 judgment of the civil court, in so far as the Panchayat is not party to that judgment, the Panchayat can take w.p.c.4193/09 3 appropriate action against the 3rd respondent for obstructing flow of water. I an unable to agree. When a civil court enters a specific finding that there is no water way through the 3rd respondent's property, even the Panchayat cannot hold that there is a water way and, on that finding, direct the 3rd respondent to open the water way for drainage of water from the 1st petitioner's property through the 3rd respondent's property. Not only that, in Ext.P9 judgment, there is a specific direction to detain the 1st petitioner in civil prison for intentional violation of the interim injunction of the civil court in I.A.No.1167/2007 dated 16.7.2007. In the above circumstances, I do not find anything wrong with the impugned order. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge w.p.c.4193/09 4 w.p.c.4193/09 5 S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P(C).No.4193 of 2009 ================== Dated this the 20th day of February, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioners are manager and principal of a higher secondary schol. The school is sutiated in 56 cents of land. According to the petitioner, ther is a canal from the school proeprty folwoig to the panchayat puramboke canal through the 3rd respondent's property. In 2005 the 3d respondent obstruted the free flow of water through the canal is the allegaions rasied by the petitioner in this original petition. Oridinally, Ext.P1 decision was passed by the 2nd respondent Panchayat and with the aid of the police obstuction was remoed at the instance of the petitioners. Thereafter, the 3rd respondent fild a suit wihtout chalenging Ext.P1 order seekinginjunction against free flow of watner through the canal. The petitioners again approached this 2nd respondent. However, the 2nd respondent declined to interferew with in view of the fact that the civil suit is penidng and Ext.P3 communication was issued to the w.p.c.4193/09 6 petitioner in that regard. Against Ext.P3 the petitioner appraoched this Court and this Corut passed Ext.P4 judgment directintg the 2nd respondent to consdier the grievancve of the petitioner in accordance with law. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a fresh repn Ext.P5 before the 2nd sp as direcated in Ext.P4 judgment. Altough the 3rd respondent filed a review petiton against Ext.P4 judgment the same also dismissed by Ext.P6 order. Thereafter, the petitioners preferred CCC No.1435/2008 agiasnt the 2nd sp for non-compliance of Ext.P4 judgment and Ext.P5 representation. While the same was pending, Ext.P7 order was apssede by the 2nd respondent wehreby the Panchayat inforemd that petitioner that in view of the fact that tere is an injucntion issued by the Civil Court in O.S.No.227/2007 no further proceedings can be taken on the petitioner's application. The petitioners are challenging Ext.P7 order in this writ petition In view of the fact that the suit had been dispsoed of, I directed the petitioner the petitioners to produce a copy of the judgment in that suit. Accordingly the petitioners have filed Ext.P9 judgment in the said suit. From the same I find that the suid had been decreed and the 1st petitioner has been injuncatieond from draining water through the 3rd respondent's property. On a finding that there is no water way through the 3rd respondent's prpoerty from the petitioners' property. The petitioners would condent that despite w.p.c.4193/09 7 Ext.P9 judgment of the of the Civil Court in so far as the Panchayat is not party to that judgment, the Panchayt can take appropait action against the 3rd respondent for obstructng flow of water. I an unable to ageree. When a civil court enters a specific finding that tehr is no water way thorugh a person's property, even the Panchayt cannot hold that tehre is a water way and and on that finding direct the 3rd respondent to open water way for drainage of water from the petitioners' property through the 3rd respondent's proeprty. Not only that, in Ext.P9 judgment, there is a specific directin to detain the 1st petitioner in civil prision for intional voilation of athe interim injunction of the Corut in I.A.No.1167/2007 dated 16.6.2007. In the abvoe circumstances, I do not find anything wrong with the impugned order. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. The writ petition is disposed of as above. sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE