The main legal point established in the judgment is the authority of the Corporation under the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994 to maintain and regulate the drainage system within its area, and to issue directions to prevent nuisance caused by obstruction of the drain.

The challenge in this Writ Petition is against Ext.P17 order by which the Secretary of Kollam Corporation directed the petitioner to remove the obstruction illegally made on the northern part of the drain and to restore the drain in its original position with a length of 6 meters towards west, within her compound wall. It was also warned that coercive action will be taken for removal of the obstruction in the event of any failure on the part of the petitioner for restoration of the drain.

2. The petitioner is challenging the authority of the Secretary of the Corporation to issue such direction, saying that the drain is in her property and is covered by Ext.P1 sale deed. According to the petitioner, the drain is owned by her and she is having every freedom to use it without any interference by the Municipality or by any others.

3. The facts leading to Ext.P17 order, as per the pleadings of the petitioner are as follows: The petitioner is the owner of 11 cents and 900 sq. meters of property, along with a residential building therein. The said building was allotted by the Kerala State Housing Board, initially on the basis of an agreement executed in the year 1981 and thereafter on the basis of Ext.P1 sale deed dated 17.02.1993. At that time there was a drainage system in the property of the petitioner. The petitioner asserts that the title of the said drain, along with the property, is vested in her by virtue of Ext.P1 sale deed, on the strength of the following recitals in the sale deed:

"The Board doth hereby convey transfer and assign by way of absolute sale into the party of the second part, ALL THAT piece of land, hereditaments and premises more particularly mentioned and described in the schedule annexed hereto together with all water drainage and electric connections thereon and all the trees and other improvements and all other things contained therein and all the rights, title and interest and other claims and demands whatsoever of the Board in and upon the same......" (emphasis supplied)

4. It is stated that the property of the petitioner was lying in low level compared to other properties adjacent to that of her. She is residing in plot No.51 and the 3rd respondent is residing on the eastern side of her property in plot No.50. The petitioner says that the 3rd respondent filed a complaint before the Ombudsman for Local Self Government Institutions alleging that there was water drainage on the northern side of her property situated outside the compound wall constructed by the Housing Board. It was alleged that the petitioner demolished the compound wall and constructed a new one encroaching on the water drainage owned by the Board. It is stated that on production of the title deed, the Ombudsman closed the complaint of the 3rd respondent, recording the document under which the said property was registered. The dispute between the petitioner and the 3rd respondent was found to be a civil dispute and therefore the Ombudsman observed that the Municipality cannot interfere in such cases and the O.P was closed accordingly. The petitioner says that even after the rejection of petition of the 3rd respondent, she continued to make complaints before various authorities. By Ext.P4 memo, the Corporation directed the petitioner to demolish the compound wall constructed over the drain allowing free flow of water through the drainage. The notice was issued on the basis of a complaint of the 3rd respondent and after getting a report on the complaints cited as reference No.(2) in Ext.P4. Producing the photographs of the property, the petitioner states that there is a public drainage system provided along the side of the road and outside the compound wall of all the plots. The petitioner says that the drainage which the petitioner has reconstructed is the one covered by Ext.P1 title deed and the Corporation does not have any right over it. She has produced Ext.P9 representation before the Corporation in which she stated that the co