The main legal point established in the judgment is the discretionary power of the Ombudsman in considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the application of the Reddendo Singula Singulis rule to confine appealable notices under the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act,1994.

K.M. Joseph, J.

1. The appellant is the petitioner in the writ petition. The writ petition was filed by him on the following brief allegations:

The petitioner and his wife own 12 cents of land and a house. The third respondent is the neighbour. There was a public pathway of 3 metre width in front of the petitioner's house leading to the public road. A portion of the said pathway lie on the side of the 3rd respondent's property was clandestinely annexed to his land and got a decree from civil court fixing boundary accordingly. The said decree was executed by putting up wall as evident in Exhibit-P1 report of Ameen and P2 photographs. Later, constructions started by the third respondent was stopped by Panchayat being violative of Building Rules. When he tried to annex the presently available 1 metre pathway also to his land, the petitioner filed O.S. No.811/2010 before Munsiff Court, Kollam, produced as Exhibit-P3. Order of injunction is passed. The 3rd respondent filed Written Statement and raised a counter claim to have a survey of land and refix boundary. The said suit is pending consideration. Meanwhile, he approached the 1st respondent Ombudsman under the guise of the stop memo, who issued Exhibit-P9 order directing Thahsildar to cause a survey and thus the measure of 3rd respondent's land. Though the petitioner filed objection, the same was not considered nor was be heard. The petitioner then filed WP(c)1176/2012 before this Court, who by Ext.P10 judgment set aside Ext.P9 order and directed the Ombudsman to reconsider the matter. Ignoring the contentions in Ext.P11 argument notes, the learned Ombudsman, again passed a similar order to conduct survey and measurement of the land ignoring the pendency of civil suit in the same issue and the specific bar by section 47 of the Civil Procedure Code. The said order in Ext-P12 is challenged.

2. Learned single Judge did not find it fit to interfere with the order impugned, in exercise of the powers conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, and dismissed the writ petition. Hence the appeal.

3. We heard learned counsel for the appellant Sri. K. Abdul Jawad and the learned counsel for the third respondent Sri. K. Subashchandra Bose.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant addressed the following submissions before us:

This is a case where there is no jurisdiction for the Ombudsman to have passed Ext.P12. He expatiates by pointing out section 271 M(4)(b) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act,1994 (for short 'The Act'). It reads thus:

“271M. Investigation.-

(1) xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

(4) The Ombudsman shall not enquire into matters relating to,

(a) xxxxx

(b) Any matter in respect of which a remedy is available from the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions constituted under Section 271S.”

He would submit that in this case, the third respondent was faced with proceedings under section 235 W of the Act. Section 276 (4) provides for remedy of appeal against such proceedings. It reads as follows:

“276. Appeal and Revision-(1) xxxxxxxxxxx

(4) An appeal on the notice, order or action of the Secretary under Sections 235I, 235 J, 235 N, 235 W and 235 X shall be filed before the Tribunal Constituted for Local Self Government Institutions under Section 271 S, and it may on an application by an order, stay the operation of the said notice, order or action taken pending disposal of the appeal”

5. He would submit that therefore, the complaint itself should not have been entertained by Ombudsman. He would draw our attention to section 271 J of the Act. Section 271 J speaks about the functions to be performed by the Ombudsman. It also provides the manner in which order is to be passed. In particular, he would draw our attention to sections 271 J (iii) (a), (b), (c), (d). He further drew our attention to section 271(Q), which provides the manner for disposal of complaints. He therefore, contends that what the Ombudsman has done is in excess of power granted to him under the Ac