IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
K.M.UNNIKRISHNAN – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 12325 OF 2017
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioners claimed right of easement obstructed by the grama panchayat. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. petition was pending without interim orders for nine years. (Para 3) |
JUDGMENT
The above writ petition is filed with following prayers :
“((a) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction or order directing the respondents 1 to 3 to remove /demolish the portion of retaining wall having a length of 15 ft constructed across the bell mouth of the pathway leading to petitioners residence which is scheduled in Exhibit P1 order and also to provide free access including vehicular access from the panchayat road to the pathway leading to the petitioners property.
(b) Any other writ which the court deems proper for the effective dispensation of justice.
(c) Pass such other orders as this Honourable Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”[sic]
2. The petitioners are having their residential property within the territory of 2nd respondent-Grama Panchayat is the submission. According to the petitioners, there is a 13 feet wide pathway from the said property to Kunnamthanam Panchayat road which passes through the properties of the 5th respondent. It is the case of the petitioners that they have the right of easement over the said pathway is the submission. It is also submitted that the petitioners have an order of injunction against the creation of any obstruction in the said pathway. Even then, under the influence of the 4th and 5th respondents, the 3rd respondent Grama Panchayat caused obstruction for the ingress and egress through the pathway by constructing a wall under the guise of a retaining wall is the submission. Aggrieved by the same, this writ petition is filed.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, Standing Counsel appearing for the Panchayat. I also heard the counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 4 and 5.
4. This writ petition was filed in the year 2017.
For the last nine years, this writ petition was pending. There is no interim order passed in this writ petition. I am of the considered opinion that this writ petition need not be retained here. If there is any surviving grievance, which can be redressed by the Panchayat, the petitioners can file appropriate representation before the Panchayat and if such a representation is filed, the Panchayat will consider the same, with notice to the petitioners and the party respondents.
With the above observation, this writ petition is disposed of.
Sd/-
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.