IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 5861 of 2009(C)
1. PRAVEEN KUMAR
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE SECRETARY
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.JOHN VARGHESE (VEYKKAN)
For Respondent :SRI.T.A.SHAJI
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :24/02/2010
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
================
W.P.(C) NO. 5861 OF 2009 (C)
=====================
Dated this the 24th day of February, 2010
J U D G M E N T
Petitioner owns property in Sy.No.195 of Pallipuram Village,
where he is residing with his family. According to the petitioner,
adjacent to the above property, Panchayat has a property through
which there is a pathway, which he was using for his access to his
residential premises. It is stated that by long use of the land, he
acquired easement right over the said property.
2. While so, the Panchayat started to excavate the land
for the purpose of constructing compound wall enclosing the
property, which if materializes, will result in blockage of the
pathway, which the petitioner was using. It is in these
circumstances after making Ext.P4 representation and when there
was no response from the Panchayat, he filed this writ petition.
By order dated 2/3/2009, this Court directed that construction of
the compound wall by the respondent Panchayat shall not
obstruct the ingress and egress of the petitioner to his property,
and this order remains in force even now.
3. The contention of the Panchayat is that dispute is
WPC 5861/09
:2 :
purely a matter of civil nature, and if at all the petitioner has a
cause of action, that should be agitated before the Civil Court. I
am inclined to agree with the counsel for the Panchayat that in
the nature of the dispute that is raised, the remedy available to
the petitioner is before the Civil Court. However, as rightly
pointed out by the counsel for the petitioner, such a civil remedy
can be availed of only after serving notice on the Panchayat as
required under Section 249 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act and
that in the meanwhile, if the compound wall is constructed and
the access is blocked, according to the petitioner, serious
prejudice will be cased to him. In order to avoid such a situation
and as the remedy of the petitioner lies before the Civil Court, it is
ordered that the interim order dated 2/3/2009 will remain in force
for a period of six weeks from today and in the meanwhile, it is up
to the petitioner to seek his remedies before the appropriate Civil
Court.
Writ petition is disposed of as above.
ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE
Rp