The central legal point established in the judgment is that the Ombudsman's powers are delineated to investigate irregularities, corruption, and maladministration, and do not extend to adjudicating boundary disputes between property owners.

This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to quash Ext.P3 order passed by the Ombudsman for Local Self Government Institutions in O.P.No.1189/2013 dated 14.08.2013, by which certain directions were issued to the Secretary of the 2nd respondent Grama Panchayat in order to separate the boundaries by and between he properties of the petitioner and the 1st respondent with the assistance of the Village Officer, and for further consequential actions. Material facts for the disposal of the writ petition are as follows:

2. The writ petitioner is the owner of the property having an extent of 6 cents situate in Re survey No.4418/4 of Kalliassery amsom of Kannur Taluk. According to the petitioner, petitioner has re constructed an old house situated in the said property after securing building permit from the Secretary of the Grama Panchayat. Since the 1st respondent is having property abutting the western side of the petitioner's property, petitioner has constructed the house without removing any soil from the property. The construction activities of the petitioner have also not affected the lateral support of the 1st respondent's property. However, 1st respondent has been making complaints before various authorities, but no action was initiated against the petitioner, having found that the complaints are frivolous.

3. It was thereupon that the 1st respondent approached the Ombudsman, alleging that the petitioner has removed soil from the property, due to which, there is likelihood of landslide and also it will affect the house of the 1st respondent. Petitioner has entered appearance and filed detailed objection to the complaint and also explaining the facts and circumstances. That apart, it was pointed out that there is a boundary dispute pending between the parties and the boundary is yet to be fixed. The property of the petitioner is lying in two levels and the property lying in the higher level abuts the defendant's property and it remains as it is.

4. In spite of the objections raised with respect to the power of the Ombudsman to consider such applications, directions are issued to separate the boundaries and then take consequential actions. Therefore, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the order is passed by the Ombudsman without any power conferred under Sec.271 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, especially due to the fact that there are no allegations made against any of the authorities of the Panchayat, enabling the Ombudsman to exercise the powers conferred under the aforesaid provision. That apart, it is stated that, O.S.No.185 of 2013 filed by the petitioner is pending consideration before the Subordinate Judge's Court, Kannur. These are the background facts projected by the petitioner to quash Ext.P3 order passed by the Ombudsman.

5. A detailed counter affidavit is filed by the 3rd respondent, i.e., the Secretary of the Grama Panchayat, wherein various documents are produced. Among other contentions, it is stated that, the writ petitioner agreed to approach the Village Officer to demarcate the boundaries of the parties and to take appropriate steps to protect the boundary wall, which was pointed out by the 3rd respondent before the Ombudsman, evident from Ext.R3(b). The Panchayat has taken further action on account of the directions issued by the Ombudsman and Ext.R3(c) is a notice dated 31.10.2013. Accordingly, a site inspection was conducted with the assistance of the Village Officer and it was found that since earth was removed from the petitioner's property, it is necessary to protect the property of the 1st respondent by constructing a retaining wall. The writ petitioner was directed to do so, in accordance with the directions contained in Ext.P3 order passed by the Ombudsman, evident from Ext.R3(e) directions. Therefore, according to the 3rd respondent, there is no manner of illegality from the part of the 3rd respondent and the 3rd respondent was discharging its obligations on a