Kamalakshi Raman vs The District Collector
2021 Latest Caselaw 7126 Ker

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                         PRESENT

           THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH

  MONDAY, THE 01ST DAY OF MARCH 2021/10TH PHALGUNA, 1942

                WP(C).No.10845 OF 2015(E)


PETITIONERS:

     1     KAMALAKSHI RAMAN, W/O.RAMAN,
           VALLAMKUZHIYIL HOUSE, UDAYAMPEROOR,
           MANAKUNNAM VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK,
           ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

     2     LATHA SUKUMARAN, W/O.SUKUMARAN,
           VELLAMKUZHIYIL HOUSE, UDAYAMPEROOR,
           MANAKUNNAM VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK,
           ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

     3     PARAMESWARAN, S/O.RAMAN,
           VELLAMKUZHIYIL HOUSE, UDAYAMPEROOR,
           MANAKUNNAM VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK,
           ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

           BY ADVS.
           SRI.ABRAHAM P.GEORGE
           SMT.M.SANTHY

RESPONDENTS:

     1     THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
           ERNAKULAM DISTRICT,
           CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD.

     2     THE TAHSILDAR, KANAYANNUR TALUK,
           TALUK OFFICE, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682 011.

     3     THE VILLAGE OFFICER, MANAKUNNAM VILAGE,
           UDAYAMPEROOR P.O., PIN-682 305.

     4     THE UDAYAMPEROOR GRAMA PANCHAYAT,
           REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
           PANCHAYATH OFFICE,
           UDAYAMPEROOR PO, PIN-682305.
 WP(C) No.10845/2015
                             :2 :


       5      AMMINIKUTTY, VATTIKKATTU HOUSE,
              UDAYAMPEROOR P.O., PIN-682 305.

       6      THE TALUK SURVEYOR, KANAYANNUR TALUK,
              TALUK OFFICE, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682 011.

              R1-R3 & R6 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. K.M. RASHMI
              R4 BY ADV. SMT.C.G.AJITHA
              R4 BY ADV. SMT.C.G.BINDU
              R5 BY ADV. SRI.P.MARTIN JOSE
              BY ADV. SRI.P.PRIJITH
              BY ADV. SRI.S.SREEKUMAR SR.

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 01.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) No.10845/2015
                                 :3 :




                         JUDGMENT

~~~~~~~~~

Dated this the 1st day of March, 2021

The petitioners have filed this writ petition seeking

to call for the records leading to the issuance of Ext.P5 order

passed by the 2nd respondent and to set aside the same.

2. The petitioners would contend that 1.20 Ares of

land in Re-Survey No.28/2017 of Manakunnam Village is a

public pathway starting from the MLA Road (Puthiyakavu-

Poothotta Road) and it is lying at the eastern side of the

petitioners' property. The said pathway is used by the local

inhabitants. The petitioners state that the 5th respondent

staked claim for the said land.

3. In the affidavit filed before this Court, the Panchayat

took a stand that the said pathway/land is vested with the

Panchayat and the people residing in that locality are still WP(C) No.10845/2015

using the same for their ingress and egress. The petitioners

filed complaint before the Tahsildar. The Tahsildar passed

Ext.P5 proceedings. Before the Tahsildar, the Panchayat took

a stand that the Panchayat has no right over the pathway/land

in question. Accordingly, the Tahsildar passed an order in

favour of the 5th respondent.

4. The petitioners submit that the land is actually used

as a pathway by the local residents. They diametrically

opposed the stands taken by the Panchayat in Ext.P3 and

before the Tahsildar, is intended to confer non-existing right

upon the 5th respondent.

5. The 4th respondent-Panchayat filed a statement. In

the statement, it has been pointed out that since the impugned

order is an appealable order before the Revenue Divisional

Officer by virtue of Rule 18 of the Transfer of Registry Rules,

1966, this Court need not entertain the writ petition.

6. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned

Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 3 and 6

and the learned counsel for the 5th respondent. WP(C) No.10845/2015

7. Going through the pleadings of the case and after

hearing the parties, this Court is of the opinion that since there

is an effective alternate remedy available to the petitioners

against Ext.P5, the petitioners will have to exhaust the said

remedy before approaching this Court.

In the circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of

permitting the petitioners to file a statutory appeal against

Ext.P5 order before the RDO. If the petitioners file such an

appeal within a period of four weeks, the delay, if any, caused

in filing the appeal shall be condoned by the Appellate

Authority treating that the petitioners were bona fide

prosecuting their case before this Court.

Sd/-

N. NAGARESH, JUDGE

aks/01.03.2021 WP(C) No.10845/2015

APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1            TRUE PHOTO COPY OF COMPLAINT LODGED BY
                      THE   1ST    PETITIONER   BEFORE   THE

SECRETARY, GRAMA PANCHAYAT DATED 11- 11-2011.

EXHIBIT P2 PHOTOCOPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.A4/16002/2011 (J & P 1251/2011 DATED 17-11-2011) ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.

EXHIBIT P3            TRUE   PHOTO   COPY    OF   THE   COUNTER
                      AFFIDAVIT    SUBMITTED    BY    THE   4TH

RESPONDENT PANCHAYAT IN WRIT PETITION NO.18957/2012.

EXHIBIT P4            TRUE PHOTO COPY OF JUDGMENT PASSED BY
                      HON'BLE       HIGH       COURT     IN

WPC.NO.18957/2012 DATED 21-7-2014.

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE PHOTO COPY OF ORDER PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN THE APPLICATION FOR MUTATION DATED 5-3-2015

ncd