IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 4193 of 2009(Y)
1. LOBELIA ENGLISH MEDIUM HIGHER SECONDARY
... Petitioner
2. THE PRINCIPAL,
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA,
... Respondent
2. NAYARAMBALAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT,
3. LAISY,W/O.ABRAHAM,
For Petitioner :SRI.T.N.SURESH
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN
Dated :20/02/2009
O R D E R
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