The petitioners hold an item of property

abutting a public road. They were issued Ext.P1 notice by

the Taluk Surveyor attached to the office of the third

respondent for fixing the boundary of their property at the

instance of the Assistant Executive Engineer under the

second respondent. On receipt of Ext.P1 notice, the

petitioners filed Ext.P3 suit against the respondents and

others for a declaration of their title to the property and

for injunction restraining the respondents and others from

making any claim over any portion of their property. It is

alleged by the petitioners in the suit that they are not in

possession of any puramboke land and Ext.P1 notice was

caused to be issued on the premise that the petitioners

are in possession of puramboke land. Ext.P4 is the

application for temporary injunction preferred by the

petitioners in Ext.P3 suit. The petitioners could not secure

any ad interim order of injunction in Ext.P4 application. It

is stated that the court has only issued notice on the

application for temporary injunction. The above writ

petition was filed immediately thereafter, alleging that

the respondents who are defendants in the suit are taking

steps to demolish the compound wall of the property of

the petitioners. The petitioners, therefore, sought a

direction to the respondents to refrain from demolishing

the compound wall of the property which is the subject

matter of Ext.P3 suit.

2.

Heard the learned counsel for the

petitioners.

3.

The dispute between the parties is

essentially one as to whether the petitioners are holding

any part of the Government land. The petitioners assert

that they are not in possession of any Government land.

The respondents want to satisfy the said stand of the

4

petitioners by conducting necessary measurements. The

petitioners do not want their property to be measured.

They have, therefore, approached the civil court in Ext.P3

suit and sought an order of temporary injunction

restraining the respondents and others from claiming any

right over the plaint schedule property therein. The

petitioners were not granted the interim order sought in

the suit. It is in the aforesaid background that this writ

petition is filed. The stand taken in the writ petition is that

insofar as the suit is pending, the respondents shall not

fix the boundary of the property of the petitioners

separating the public road or restore any portion of the

property in their possession as part of the road. I am

unable to agree with the stand taken by the petitioners in

the writ petition. If the petitioners are aggrieved by the

decision of the civil court in declining the ad interim order

sought by them in the suit, their remedy lies elsewhere,

and the jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 of the

Constitution cannot be invoked for the said purpose.

5

Even otherwise, in so far as the interim injunction was

declined by the civil court, the respondents are free to fix

the boundary of the property of the petitioners separating

the public road and if the petitioners are aggrieved by

such fixation, it is for them to seek appropriate relief in

the suit. The writ petition, in the circumstances, is

without merits and same is, accordingly, dismissed.

Sd/-

P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE.

PV

6

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 7264/2015

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1

TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 3RD

RESPONDENT ON 18/06/2014 TO THE

PETITIONERS

EXHIBIT P2

TRUE COPY OF THE STATUTORY NOTICE ISSUED

BY THE PETITIONER TO THE RESPONDENTS UNDER

SECTION 80 OF CPC

EXHIBIT P3

THE OFFICE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S

330/2014 BEFORE THE HON'BLE

MUNSIFF'SCOURT,PATHANAMTHITTA

EXHIBIT P4

TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM APPLICATION IA

1626/2014 FOR INJUNCTION UNDER ORDER XXXIX

RULE 1 OF CPC

EXHIBIT P5

TRUE COPY OF THE URGENT NOTICE ORDER

PASSED BY THE HON'BLE MUNSIFF'S COURT IN

ANNEXURE 2 PETITION

EXHIBIT P6

TRUE COPY OF THE COPY OF THE REPORT

MAHAZAR AND ROUGH SKETCH FILED BY THE

CO