A writ petition under Article 226 cannot resolve disputes of fact; res judicata and material suppression are significant in adjudicating the validity of claims in earlier proceedings.

JUDGMENT :

Muralee Krishna, J.

The appellant, who is the petitioner in W.P. (C)No.22531 of 2013 and W.P.(C)No.26573 of 2013, filed these writ appeals against the common judgment dated 31.10.2018, passed by the learned Single Judge in those writ petitions. Since the issue involved in both these writ appeals are interconnected and the appellant is mainly aggrieved by the dismissal of W.P.(C)No.26573 of 2013, the parties, the facts and the documents are referred to this judgment as in W.A.No.1736 of 2019 and the corresponding W.P.(C)No.26573 of 2013, unless otherwise stated.

2. The appellant is a Trust by name 'Good Shepherd Educational and Charitable Trust ('the Trust' in short) represented by its Managing Trustee. Going by the averments in the writ petitions, the Trust is running a School by the name 'The Good Shepherd Modern English School' affiliated to the Council for the Indian School Certificate Examination, New Delhi. The appellant owns 4.2280 Hectares of land in Survey Nos.351/1, 351/3, 354/7 and 354/11 of Chungathara Village. The property of the appellant is not situated by the side of Palunda-Palundakunnu Road. The only road facility available to the property of the appellant is a private road passing through the appellant's own property.

2.1. The appellant alleges that the 1st respondent Secretary of Chungathara Grama Panchayat, started asserting right over the private road leading to the School, alleging that the same is a public road. The appellant has not been given any notice regarding the steps taken by the Panchayat for the acquisition of the road or for declaration of the said road as a public road, by following the procedure contemplated under Section 169 read with Section 178 of the Panchayat Raj Act. The appellant therefore submitted Ext.P4 objections dated 28.10.2013 to the 1st respondent. Aggrieved by the aforesaid objections, the 1st respondent rejected the application for a building permit submitted by the appellant, stating that the proposed additional constructions in the School are by the side of the public road. According to the appellant, the School Building was constructed as early as in the year 2007, as per a Plan prepared by Prof.K.K.George, an Architect. The construction of the basement of the building was completed in the year 2007. Prior to the construction of the ground floor, the appellant submitted an application to the Secretary of the Panchayat on 03.09.2012, praying for the regularisation of the construction of the basement and for issuing permit for construction of the first floor. The said application was rejected by the Secretary of the Panchayat by Ext.P2 order produced in W.P.(C)No.22531 of 2013 dated 14.09.2012, stating that the building is constructed without maintaining a minimum distance of three metres from the Palunda-Palundakunnu Road and the construction is illegal and not liable to be regularised. Challenging that order, the appellant filed Appeal No.859 of 2012 before the Tribunal for Local Self-Government Institutions. In that appeal, the Grama Panchayat and its Secretary contended that the construction was carried out by the appellant by the side of Palunda-Palundakunnu road unauthorisedly and violating the provisions of Kerala Panchayat Building Rules. Accordingly, they had issued a stop memo. The Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions, by Ext.P3 order dated 25.07.2013, held that the construction so far effected by the appellant is illegal and liable to be demolished and the rejection of the permit as per Ext.P2 order is absolutely in order. Therefore, challenging