Petitioner challenged an order preventing a third respondent from using a pathway on his property. The high court found the issue is pending before a civil court and declined interference.
Writ petition dismissed; no order in either way passed as the issue is pending before the civil court.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
TUESDAY, THE 7TH JUNE 2011 / 17TH JYAISHTA 1933
WP(C).No. 2832 of 2011(D)
-------------------------
PETITIONER:
PANTHALANCHERRY KUNHAMMED, S/O.LATE AYAMU HAJI, PANTHALANCHERRY, CHAKKALAKUNNU, KUZHIMANNA P.O., MALAPPURAM.
BY ADV. SRI.SAJU.S.A
RESPONDENTS:
BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER ADV. MR. P. NARAYANAN. R3 BY ADV. SRI.P.S.SREEDHARAN PILLAI SMT.C.G.PREETHA SRI.ARJUN SREEDHAR SRI.ARUN KRISHNA DHAN SRI.JOSEPH GEORGE(MULLAKKARIYIL) SRI.K.RATHISH KUMAR
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No. 2832 of 2011(D)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXT.P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT FILED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT dated 19.09.2 009 BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:
EXT.R3(b) : TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DAT3ED 10.03.2011 ALONG WITH A SKEKTCH SUBMITTED BY THE ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER.
/TRUE COPY/
P.S. TO JUDGE.
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.
W.P.(C)No. 2832 OF 2011
......................................................................... Dated this the 7th June , 2011
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner is challenging Ext. P2 order passed by the first respondent whereby some interference has been made with regard to the alleged use of the pathway and the petitioner has been directed not to intercept with the use of the same by the third respondent herein, who was the complainant before the first respondent.
shows that the petitioner is the owner of the property in question and the third respondent allegedly sought to establish a right of way through the middle of the property of the petitioner for which, he approached the Chief Minister by filing a complaint projecting the grievance, which in turn was forwarded to the first respondent, who considered the same and passed Ext. P2 order. The petitioner challenged Ext. P2 on many a ground, legal as well
2
W.P.(C)No. 2832 OF 2011
as factual .
3
W.P.(C)No. 2832 OF 2011
third respondent against the writ petitioner and some others concerned. It is also stated that eventhough the third respondent, one among the plaintiff therein, had moved the civil court for interim relief for removing obstruction caused at the instance of the writ petitioner, no interim relief has been granted in view of pendency of the above writ petition.
W.P.(C)No. 2832 OF 2011
4
court.
The writ petition is dismissed.
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE.
lk
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ petition challenging an order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer regarding a right of way needs interference.
Whether the issue regarding the right of way is sub judice before a competent civil court.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
PANTHALANCHERRY KUNHAMMED
THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, PERINTHALMANNA
MOIDEEN MOHAMMED
CHANDRAN
THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KUZHIMANNA
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
