The Ombudsman exceeded its jurisdiction by intervening in a matter with pending civil remedies, impacting the rights of the appellant.

1. The appellant is the petitioner in the writ petition. The writ petition was filed by him on the following brief allegations:
The petitioner and his wife own 12 cents of land and a house. The third respondent is the neighbour. There was a public pathway of 3 metre width in front of the petitioner’s house leading to the public road. A portion of the said pathway lie on the side of the 3rd respondent’s property was clandestinely annexed to his land and got a decree from Civil Court fixing boundary accordingly. The said decree was executed by putting up wall as evident in Ext. P1 report of Ameen and P2 photographs. Later, constructions started by the third respondent was stopped by Panchayat being violative of Building Rules. When he tried to annex the presently available 1 metre pathway also to his land, the petitioner filed OS No. 811/2010 before Munsiff Court, Kollam, produced as Ext. P3. Order of injunction is passed. The 3rd respondent filed Written Statement and raised a counter - claim to have a survey of land and refix boundary. The said suit is pending consideration. Meanwhile, he approached the 1st respondent Ombudsman under the guise of the stop memo, who issued Ext. P9 order directing Tahsildar to cause a survey and thus the measure of 3rd respondent’s land. Though the petitioner filed objection, the same was not considered nor was be heard. The petitioner then filed WP (C) 1176/2012 before this Court, who by Ext. P10 judgment set aside Ext. P9 order and directed the Ombudsman to reconsider the matter. Ignoring the contentions in Ext. P11 argument notes, the learned Ombudsman, again passed a similar order to conduct survey and measurement of the land ignoring the pendency of civil suit in the same issue and the specific bar by S.47 of the Civil Procedure Code . The said order in Ext. P12 is challenged.

2. Learned Single Judge did not find it fit to interfere with the order impugned, in exercise of the powers conferred under Art.226 of the Constitution of India, and dismissed the writ petition. Hence the appeal.

3. We heard learned counsel for the appellant Sri. K. Abdul Jawad and the learned counsel for the third respondent Sri. K. Subashchandra Bose.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant addressed the following submissions before us: This is a case where there is no jurisdiction for the Ombudsman to have passed Ext. P12. He expatiates by pointing out S.271M(4)(b) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (for short ‘The Act’). It reads thus:
“271M. Investigation.-- (1) xxxx xxxx xxxx
(4) The Ombudsman shall not enquire into matters relating to,--
(a) xxxx xxxx xxxx
(b) any matter in respect of which a remedy is available from the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions constituted under S.271S;”
He would submit that in this case, the third respondent was faced with proceedings under S.235 W of the Act. S.276(4) provides for remedy of appeal against such proceedings. It reads as follows:
“276. Appeal and Revision.-- (1)  xxxx xxxx xxxx
(4) An appeal on the notice, order or action of the Secretary under S.235I, S.235J, S.235N, S.235W and S.235X shall be filed before the Tribunal Constituted for Local Self Government Institutions under S.271S, and it may on an application by an order, stay the operation of the said notice, order or action taken pending disposal of the appeal”

5. He would submit that therefore, the complaint itself should not have been entertained by Ombudsman. He would draw our attention to S.271J of the Act. S.271J speaks about the functions to be performed by the Ombudsman. It also provides the manner in which order is to be passed. In p