1. The issue that engages the attention of this Court in this case is whether a person can be permitted to take recourse to parallel remedies on the same issue or substantially the same issue. In other words, whether this Court can decline jurisdiction on the principle of abstention?

2. The petitioner proclaims to be the owner in possession of an extent of 42.50 cents of land comprised in survey number 735/4 of Amballur village. While the eastern boundary of his property abutting the PWD road is protected by a compound wall, the western boundary abutting Nadavazhi (footpath), which is now maintained by the second respondent Panchayat, has no compound wall. The very Nadavazhi is said to have been formed by acts of voluntary surrender of land by those persons who hold their properties on either side of the said Nadavazhi.

3. Topographically, the Nadavazhi begins from the house of the petitioner and goes further forward towards “Karukapadam Road’’ (Vazhi). The entire Nadavazhi is uneven in its width, with a breadth of 4 meters at the beginning but varying at places from 2.5 meters to 3 meters till its end.

4. The foundation for litigation has been laid when the petitioner tried to lay foundation for building a compound wall along the Nadavazhi to protect the western side of his property. ‘Certain persons’ in the vicinity, not directly connected, filed a complaint before the second respondent Panchayat alleging that the petitioner was attempting to construct a compound wall by encroaching upon the public pathway. It all began, it seems, after the petitioner submitted Ext.P8 application before the Grama Panchayat on 10.03.2014 seeking permission to construct a compound wall.

5. Acting on the complaints of the neighbours, when an officer of the Panchayat made a local inspection, no such encroachment was found, as per Ext.P1 report submitted by the said officer. Nevertheless, the Panchayat, desirous of resolving the issue, sought the assistance of the Amballur Village officer to measure and identity the actual extent of the pathway abutting the petitioner’s property. Accordingly it addressed Ext.P2 letter dated 13/1/2014 to the village officer.

6. After conducting an enquiry, the village officer, though prima facie not found any encroachment, has however recommended for a proper survey of the property by a Taluk surveyor, as can be seen from Ext.P3. Despite the Panchayat’s decision through Ext.P4 to have the property surveyed by the Taluk surveyor ‘at the expense and risk of those who lodged complaints’ nothing concrete emerged thereafter. In the meanwhile, both parties, the petitioner and some of the neighbours, have approached the Civil Court.

7. To ascertain the actual extent of the road, when the petitioner approached the Grama Panchayat under the provisions of the Right to Information Act, the Grama Panchayat in turn, through Ext.P6, advised the petitioner to approach the office of the superintendent of Survey and Land Records at Thrissur, which he did. The sketch provided by the said authority, according to the petitioner, reveals that the road is not uniform in its breadth as it undulates with an average width of 2.5 meters to 3 meters. Eventually the Grama Panchayat has also tarred the entire length of the road maintaining the same breadth of 2.90 meters to 3 meters.

8. Ventilating his grievance that even after a laps of 9 months, subsequent to the receipt of Exhibit P8, the Panchayat has not acted on his application for permit, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

9. In the above factual backdrop, the learned Counsel for the petitioner has contended that Section 235-j of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act (‘the Act’ for brevity), read with Rule 14 of the Kerala Panchayat Building Rules (‘the Rules’), mandates that the secretary of the Panchayat concerned has to consider the application for building permit within a period of 30 days after the receipt of the application. Rule 13 and its sub-rules enumerate th