JUDGMENT

The above writ petition is filed with the following prayers:

“(i) Issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding respondents 1 to 3 to consider Exhibit -P1 and remove the property from asset register of the panchayath, not to proceed further with repairing or widening the property as panchayath road, as the petitioner got half right over the same.

(ii) To pass any such or further orders as the petitioner may seek and this Hon'ble Court deem fit to grant.”[SIC]

2. It is the case of the petitioner that he is the co-owner of a disputed private pathway and he obtained half right as per the compromise decree in O.S No.425 of 1980 of the Irinjalakkuda Munsiff Court. Ext.P1 is the decree. According to the petitioner, one Bahuleyan was the owner of the pathway and half right over the pathway purchased by the petitioner for valid consideration and accordingly compromise decree was passed. Later the said pathway was tarred by the petitioner and Bahuleyan and according to the petitioner it is maintained as a private road. Subsequently Bahuleyan sold his remaining adjacent properties. It is the case of the petitioner that they are attempting to make the said pathway as public. It is the case of the petitioner that there is no relinquishment of right or acquisition property in the above with regard to the right of the petitioner. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent Panchayat is attempting to widen the road by tarring the same. It is the case of the petitioner that the Panchayat has no right to trespass to the property of the petitioner and the Panchayat has no right to improve or widen the property without relinquishment of right by the petitioner. It is the case of the petitioner that the Panchayat included the property in the asset register. Petitioner submitted Ext.P3 representation before the Panchayat, but there is no response to the same and hence this writ petition is filed.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader, the learned Standing Counsel for the Panchayat and the learned counsel appearing for the 4th respondent.

4. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that, in the light of Ext.P1 decree the Panchayat can not include the pathway in the asset register of the Panchayat. On the other hand the learned counsel appearing for the 4th respondent submitted that the point raised by the petitioner is decided against the petitioner in the judgment of this Court dated 08.02.2017 in W.A.No.1537 of 2015.

5. Admittedly Ext.P3 is pending before the 2nd respondent. The petitioner narrated his grievance in Ext.P3. There can be a direction to the 2nd respondent to consider Ext.P3 in the light of Ext.P1 decree. The Panchayat will also consider the applicability of the dictum laid down by this Court in W.A.No.1537 of 2015, while deciding this matter.

Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of in the following manner:

i. The 2nd respondent is directed to consider Ext.P3 representation, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

ii. Before passing final orders, the 2nd respondent will give an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and the Panchayat will consider all the contentions raised by the petitioner.

iii.The petitioner will produce a copy of this writ petition along with a certified copy of this judgment before the

2nd respondent for compliance.

Sd/-

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE

DM

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 12666/2021 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPROMISE FILED IN OS. NO. 425 OF 1980 OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, IRINJALAKUDA DATED 5.11.1981.

EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 30.03.2021 ALONG WITH REPLY FROM 2ND RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 2.3.2019.

RESPONENTS EXHIBITS : NIL //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE