J U D G M E N T

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

2. The petitioner and the 5th respondent had fairly dragged on civil litigation, in which, the petitioner got a decree in her favour from the first appellate court. That was one declaring easement right by prescription over a parcel of land and protecting her right for user of that parcel of land for ingress and egress. That decree stands affirmed by the Honourable Supreme Court. Thereafter, the Kerala Water Authority, 'KWA' for short, took up the application of the petitioner and granted a water connection work order, in terms of which, it is stated that water supply was effected on 19.11.2013. The work was carried out by laying the water supply line through the afore-noted parcel over which the right of easement by prescription was declared by the civil court. Taking the stand that what was declared ultimately and granted as per the decree was right of ingress and egress, the 5th respondent objected to the water connection given by the KWA. The immediate reaction of the local officer of the KWA was to effect disconnection. This situation obviously shows that the KWA never considered any objection of the 5th respondent b