Kerala High Court
Sumayya E vs The Revenue Divisional Officer on 15 February, 2024
Author: Murali Purushothaman
Bench: Murali Purushothaman
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN
THURSDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 26TH MAGHA, 1945
WP(C) NO. 5854 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
SUMAYYA E, AGED 31 YEARS
W/O.NOUSHAD K, KONDHOPARAMBHIL HOUSE, PALLAR,
THIRUNAVAYA, TIRUR, MALAPPURAM, PIN - 676301
BY ADVS.
SADIQALI.M
DHANYA S NAIR
DELLA ABRAHAM
NIMA MERIYAM KOSHY
MOHAMED SHAFI M.
SHAMNAD.E.
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, THRIKANDIYOOR ROAD,
TIRUR, MALAPPURAM, PIN - 671610
2 THE THIRUNAVAYA GRAMA PANCHAYATH
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, THIRUNAVAYA GRAMA
PANCHAYAT, THIRUNAVAYA MALAPPURAM, PIN - 676301
3 THE TAHSILDAR TIRUR, TALUK OFFICE, MINI CIVIL
STATION BUILDING, TIRUR, MALAPPURAM, PIN - 676101
4 AREEKATTU PARAMBIL SAITHALAVI @ KUNCHAPPU
S/O.ABDUL GAFOOR, AREEKATT PARAMBIL, THIRUTHY,
THIRUNAVAYA, TIRUR MALAPPURAM, PIN - 676301
5 ABDUL GAFFOR, AREERKATTU PARAMBIL, THIRUTHY,
THIRUNAVAYA, TIRUR MALAPPURAM, PIN - 676301
BY SMT.R.DEVI SHRI, GP
SRI.K.J.SAJI ISSAC, SC
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 15.02.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C) No.5854 of 2024 2
JUDGMENT
Petitioner and respondents 4 and 5 are
neighbours. According to the petitioner,
respondents 4 and 5 have constructed a pit in
their property using earth movers. Due to the
excavation done by respondents 4 and 5, the
southern boundary wall of the petitioner's
property is collapsed. The petitioner preferred
Ext.P2 complaint before the 1st respondent in this
regard. Since the complaint was not acted upon,
the petitioner approached this Court by filing
WP(C) No.42107 of 2022 and this Court, having
found that the matter involves questions of fact,
vide Ext.P4 judgment, directed the RDO to consider
Ext.P2 complaint and to take appropriate decision
in the matter. Pursuant to Ext.P4, the RDO heard
the petitioner and respondents 4 and 5 and passed
Ext.P5 order rejecting the complaint stating that
the subject matter of the dispute has to be
resolved through a Civil Court as the issue
revolves around a private property.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the
petitioner, the learned Government Pleader and the
learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 2 nd
respondent.
3. It is seen from Ext.P5 order that though an
attempt was made to mediate the matter, the
parties could not arrive at a settlement.
Considering the nature of issues, I am of the
opinion that the issues could not be resolved in a
proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India and the petitioner has to approach the
competent Civil Court. I do not find any
illegality or arbitrariness in Ext.P5 order.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed
without prejudice to the right of the petitioner
to avail any other remedies as may be available in
law. It is also made clear that the right of the
petitioner to pursue the proceedings pursuant to
Ext.P1 will not be foreclosed by this judgment.
Sd/-
MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN
JUDGE
sp/15/02/2024
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-
Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE SENT BY THE
2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 4TH TO 5TH
RESPONDENT
Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT GIVEN TO
THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 28.05.2022
Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE DIRECTION GIVEN BY
THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 07.06.2022
Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C)
NO:42107 OF 2022
Exhibit P5 A TRUE COPY OF DECISION NO:RDOTIR/
2577/2022-D1 DATED 01.01.2024
