The issue in this writ petition is whether the road in question leading to the houses of the petitioner and six others is an exclusive private path, meant for the benefit of those seven persons; or a public road vested in the respondent Grama Panchayat, meant for the benefit of the general public.

2. Briefly stated, the petitioner, having a residential building within the limits of the respondent Grama Panchayat, shares a pathway with six others in the locality. The pathway, formed when an area of 71 cents of private land was plotted out by the owner of the property, was only meant to serve the needs of the houses constructed on either side of it.

3. When the petitioner and her neighbours came to know in 2011 that the Panchayat had included the private pathway in its Asset Register around 2011, all of them submitted Exhibit P4 application to the Panchayat seeking the removal of the road from the Asset Register. Though there is no official reply, the then Panchayat secretary and Assistant Engineer of the Grama Panchayat are said to have informed the petitioner and others that the pathway had been removed from the Asset Register. After considerable lapse of time, now the respondent Grama Panchayat, without any manner of right, started laying interlocking blocks on a part of the road at the behest of the member of the ward.

4. Alarmed at the turn of events, the petitioner is said to have submitted to the first respondent Exhibit P5 application under the Right to Information Act to know how the Grama Panchayat could lay a road on a private path. Having not been heard from the Grama Panchayat, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

5. The learned counsel, in the above factual background, has strenuously contended that the Grama Panchayat has brought a private pathway into its Asset Register without following the due procedure. According to him, despite the property belonging to private persons, the Grama Panchayat has been making efforts to appropriate the pathway without even putting the petitioner and others on notice. In elaboration, the learned counsel would contend that it is being done at the behest of the ward member and two other interested persons who have an axe to grind.

6. The learned counsel has also contended that, if the respondent Panchayat completes the task of paving the road with the interlocking blocks, during the rainy season the water will flow down to the low-lying areas affecting the petitioner and other property owners.

7. The learned counsel, addressing himself to the statutory aspects of the issue, would contend that the Government has formed certain guidelines regarding the preparation of the Asset Register, but the Grama Panchayat has not followed the said guidelines, when it included the private pathway in the Asset Register. According to him, unless the owners of the property, in the present instance the petitioner and 6 others, relinquish the right in the property under the provisions of the Kerala Land Relinquishment Act, 1958, the Grama Panchayat would not get any manner of right over the pathway. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel has drawn my attention to sections 3 and 4 of the said Act.

8. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent Grama Panchayat has contended that the so-called private pathway, known as garden road, was included in the digitalised Asset Register in 2011. According to him, it is a long-standing demand of the people residing by the side of the road, as well as the common commuters, that the road be subjected to tarring or concrete work to avoid soil erosion during rainy season. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel has drawn my attention to Exhibit R1(c) representation before the second respondent seeking a properly laid road for their benefit. He has laid stress on the fact that Exhibit R1(c) was submitted, among others, by the petitioner's brother and also two other persons who are said to be the signatories to Exhibit P4.

9.