IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 30TH MARCH 2010 / 9TH CHAITHRA 1932 WP(C).No. 10379 of 2010(V) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- P.KRISHNAN, AGED 70 YEARS, S/O.KARUPPANKUTTY, PALLIYALIL HOUSE, MAKKARAPARAMBU POST, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN 676507. BY ADV. SRI.N.M.MADHU SMT.C.DEVIKA RANI KAIMAL RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. MAKKARAPARAMBU GRAMA PANCHAYATH REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MAKKARAPARAMBU, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. ANIL BABU, AGED 35, S/O.BALACHANDRAN @ BABU, PALLIYALIL HOUSE, VELLATUPARAMBU, MAKKARAPARAMBU POST, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN 676507. 3. BAIJU P., S/O.BALAN, PALLIYAL HOUSE, NEAR KOLATHARA TEMPLE, MAKKARAPARAMBU POST, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN 676507. 4. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MALAPPURAM POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER K.R. DEEPA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 10379 of 2010 APPENDIX EXHIBITS EXT.P1- TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 26.9.09 EXT.P2- TRUE COPY OF THE FIR DATED 21.3.10 EXT.P3- TRUE COPY OF THE LAWYER NOTICE DATED 22.3.10 EXT.P4 SERIES- PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE SITE SHOWING DESTRUCTION EXT.P5- TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 24.3.10 (TRUE COPY) P.A TO JUDGE ANTONY DOMINIC, J ------------------- W.P.(C).10379/2010 -------------------- Dated this the 30th day of March, 2010 JUDGMENT The prayers sought in the writ petition are the following:- (i). To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the respondents one to three to stop the work of the road on the northern side of the petitioner's property under Project No..44 (ii). To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the respondents one to three to restore possession of the encroached portion of the petitioner's property forthwith (iii). To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the 1st respondent to appoint an independent valuer from the panel to be submitted by the petitioner and to asses the damages caused to the petitioner due to the demolition of his compound wall and to pay such amount to the petitioner as assessed by W.P.(C).10379/10 2 such valuer within a time frame to be fixed by this Honourable Court. 2. According to the petitioner, 3rd respondent has entered into a contract with the 1st respondent Panchayat and has executed Project No.44 and that he is encroaching into the petitioner's property and causing destruction of the compound wall of the petitioner for widening the road. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent Panchayat, on instructions, submits that the Panchayat has not entered into any agreement with the 3rd respondent and that the 3rd respondent is not executing any work on behalf of the Panchayat. If this be the factual position, petitioner cannot seek any direction against the 3rd respondent as provided under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the remedy of the petitioner is to approach the Civil Court. Without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to do so, this writ petition is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge mrcs