IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 4266 of 2008(G)
1. C.K. MOIDEENKUTTY, S/O. MOHAMMED,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. ABDU REHMAN NAGAR GRAMA PANCHAYATH,
... Respondent
2. PRESIDENT,
3. THE SECRETARY,
4. THE SECRETARY,
5. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER LSGD,
For Petitioner :SRI.T.KRISHNAN UNNI (SR.)
For Respondent :SRI.K.P.SUDHEER
The Hon'ble the Chief Justice MR.S.R.BANNURMATH
The Hon'ble MR. Justice A.K.BASHEER
Dated :10/09/2009
O R D E R
S.R. Bannurmath, C.J. & A.K. Basheer, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
W.P.(C)No. 4266 OF 2008
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 10th day of September, 2009
JUDGMENT
Basheer, J.
Petitioner who is stated to be a resident of Abdu
Rehiman Nagar in Malappuram District has a grievance that
the Public Road connecting Pallat Edavazhy and Pukayur
Vayal is not being completed by the Panchayat. He alleges
total inaction and laches on the part of the Panchayat and
therefore prays for issuance of a writ of mandamus or any
other appropriate writ, order or direction to respondents 1, 2
and 5 to take immediate and effective steps to complete the
work of the road referred to above.
2. In the counter affidavit filed by the Panchayat it is
admitted that Pallat Edavazhy – Pukayur Vayal road is
included in the Road Register of Panchayat. However, a small
portion there of, viz. about 70 meters, in respect of which
petitioner appears to be more concerned, does not form part
WP(C) No.4266 of 2008
-:2:-
of the road mentioned above. The Revenue records also would
show that the above portion does not form part of the road in
question. There appears to be some dispute over this portion of
land which admittedly belong to a local Mosque Committee. Two
groups in the Committee are pitted against each other on this
issue. In this connection the Panchayat has already addressed
the Government through Ext.R1(a) seeking its intervention. The
Panchayat apprehends that since the dispute emanates from two
groups of people belonging to the very same community, it would
be advisable that the Government takes a final decision in the
matter, so that quietus can be given to the simmering dispute at
the highest level. A specific request has been made by the
Panchayat in this regard to the Government as could be seen
from Ext.R1(a). In short, the stand taken by the Panchayat is
that because of this disputed portion in the land, the work has
not been taken up so far.
3. In the counter affidavit filed by respondent No.4 also it is
pointed out that the above issue has been raised by the
WP(C) No.4266 of 2008
-:3:-
Committee before the Government through Ext.R4(e) and R4(f)
requesting the Government to intervene in the matter and
resolve the issue. Ext.R4(j) is one such representation submitted
by respondent No.4 before the additional respondent No.6, the
Secretary to Government, Local Self Government Institutions.
4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having
perused the materials available on record we are of the view that
no orders need be passed by this Court at this stage especially
since the Government is in seisin of the matter. It would
therefore be appropriate that the Government takes a decision
expeditiously, especially since construction of the road would
always be to the advantage and benefit of the local people.
5. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction
to the additional respondent No.6 to take a decision on Ext.R4(a)
as well as Ext.R4(j) as expeditiously as possible, at any rate,
within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this
judgment. It shall be ensured by additional respondent No.6 that
all the affected parties are afforded sufficient opportunity to be
WP(C) No.4266 of 2008
-:4:-
heard in the matter before any final decision is taken.
The Writ Petition is disposed of in the above terms.
S.R. Bannurmath,
Chief Justice.
A.K. Basheer,
Judge.
ttb