The Court determined that prior civil court findings preclude granting directions for road tiling, as no decree was issued in favor of the petitioner.

J U D G M E N T

The petitioner has filed the captioned writ petition pointing out the requirement for tiling a portion measuring 2.4m x 1.6m during the reconstruction of the 'Unniyambalam –

Chakkamthara' road, undertaken by the respondents herein.

2. I have heard Sri.T. Kabil Chandran, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri.Rajesh Sivaramankutty, the learned counsel for the 8^th respondent, as well as the learned counsel for the 6^th respondent – Panchayath.

3. The case set up by the petitioner is to the effect that the road in question has been tiled, leaving a portion untiled, and that portion also requires to be tiled so as to complete the road. The 8^th respondent has sought himself to be impleaded in the writ petition and he has pointed out through his counsel that, though a civil suit was instituted by a third party, who is related to the petitioner herein, pointing out that the portion forming subject matter of this writ petition is forming part of the public road, the said contention was not accepted by the civil court. Subsequently, the petitioner has also produced the judgment in O.S. No.230 of 2016 of the Additional Munsiff's Court, Cherthala, dismissing the suit instituted as above asExt.P16.

4. In view of the findings contained in the judgment at Ext.P16 of the civil court, this Court notices that issuance of any positive directions in this case does not arise, since the civil court has not issued any decree as sought for in the civil suit. In that view of the matter, the positive declaration and direction sought for by the petitioner in this writ petition cannot be issued.

5. At the same time, the learned counsel for the petitioner raised a contention to the effect that the property in question is forming part of the asset register of the Panchayath. Sri.Rajesh Sivaramankutty, the learned counsel for the 8^th respondent – Panchayth, however pointed out that the question of the aforementioned property forming part of the asset register does not arise in view of the findings contained in the judgment of the civil court at Ext.P16.

6. In the light of the communication issued by the Village Officer addressed to the Sub Collector at Ext.R8(d), I am of the opinion that the afore contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted.

In that view of the matter, I find no reasons to entertain this writ petition any further, and the same would stand dismissed.

Sd/-