The jurisdiction of civil courts in property boundary disputes cannot be undermined by orders from the Ombudsman or other administrative bodies.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner, owner of an item of immovable property within the limits of the 3rd respondent-Panchayat had commenced construction of a residential building, pursuant to Exhibit P1 No Objection Certificate issued by the Panchayat. Thereupon, the 4th respondent filed a civil suit against him and Exhibit P3 order of temporary injunction was obtained, restraining the petitioner from making any constructions encroaching into the property scheduled to the plaint. Subsequently, the petitioner filed his written statement preferring a counter claim also. Thereafter, it appears that the interim order was varied permitting him to continue the construction. Exhibit P5 order of Police protection has also been granted.

2. In the above circumstances, according to the petitioner, the 4th respondent approached the Ombudsman for Local Self Government Institutions, by preferring Complaint No.350/2012. In the said complaint, Exhibit P6, the 4th WPC.No.24139/13 -2-

respondent sought for initiation of legal action against the alleged illegal construction of the petitioner and also for a direction to cancel the building permit issued to him. According to the petitioner, no building permit has been issued to him and in fact, no such permit is also necessary, in view of Exhibit P1. On Exhibit P6, Exhibit P7 order was passed by the Ombudsman directing a measurement of the properties of both the petitioner and the 4th respondent with respect to their title deeds and to demarcate their boundaries to find out whether there is any violation, as alleged. Exhibit P7 has been followed up with Exhibit P9 further order directing compliance with the direction already issued. Thereupon, as per Exhibit P10 proceedings, the 2nd respondent has informed the petitioner that he was initiating action to fix the boundary between the property of the petitioner and the 4th respondent. 3. According to Sri G.Sudheer, who appears for the petitioner, the impugned action of the 2nd respondent in initiating action to fix the boundary of the petitioner's property when the entire matter is pending consideration of the civil court is absolutely without any justification whatsoever. The civil court being the competent authority to fix the boundary of the WPC.No.24139/13 -3-

petitioner's property, the present action initiated as per Exhibit P10 is liable to be set aside, it is contended. According to the counsel, the Ombudsman has no authority to pass orders interfering with the proceedings that are pending before the civil court. Therefore, he seeks the issue of appropriate directions setting aside Exhibits P7, P9 and P10.

4. Heard.

5. This Writ Petition comes up before me for admission.

Exhibit P7 order is seen to have been passed on 2.4.2012. I am not satisfied that any challenge against Exhibit P7 is maintainable at this length of time. Exhibit P9 is only a consequential order issued pursuant to Exhibit P7. Since the petitioner had not challenged Exhibit P7 at the appropriate time, Exhibit P9 also cannot be found fault with. However, the records produced before me show that the dispute between the petitioner and the 4th respondent is pending adjudication of the Munsiff's Court, Neyyattinkara in O.S.No.705/11. The civil court being the appropriate authority empowered to settle the boundary dispute between the petitioner and the 4th respondent, the proceedings initiated as per Exhibit P10 cannot affect the ordinary civil WPC.No.24139/13 -4-

jurisdiction of the Munsiff's Court. The proceedings initiated pursuant to Exhibit P10 also cannot affect the rights of the parties in the suit, O.S.No.705/2011 referred to above. The rights of the parties to the suit would have to adjudicated by the Munsiff's court, independently, on the basis of the evidence to be adduced in the suit. If a measurement is found necessary, such measurement would have to be conducted pursuant to orders that are to be issued by the said court. The proceedings initiated as per Exhibit P10 cannot therefore have a