KOCHUKRISHNAN Vs. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Second petitioner is the son of the first petitioner. During pendency of this writ petition the first petitioner died and a memo to that effect was filed. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the 2nd petitioner is the sole owner of the property which is the subject matter involved and hence impleading of other legal heirs is not required. Hence the writ petition is allowed to he prosecuted by the second petitioner. Respondents 4 and 5 submitted Ext P1 complaint before the 1st respondent that, the petitioners have caused illegal obstruction to a pathway situated on the northern side of property belonging to them, which was being used by them and others for the last so many years. Since the 1st respondent has not taken any steps on the basis of Ext. P1, the 4th respondent herein had approached this court in W.P. (Q.24242/10. In Ext. P2 judgment this court directed the 1st respondent (4th respondent in that writ petition) to pass a conditional order under Section 133(1) Cr.P.C. and to proceed with further steps, if he is convinced that mere is obstruction to a public pathway. Pursuant to Ext. P2 judgment, the 1st respondent issued Ext. P3 a conditional order under Section 133 Cr.P.C. In Ext. P3 it is mentioned mat, "it has been made to appear to me that a Puramboke pathway used by the petitioners is obstructed by you....". Through Ext. P3 the petitioners were directed to remove such obstructions within 15 days or to appear and show cause as to why the order should not be in enforced.

(2.) The first petitioner herein filed a Review Petition against Ext. P2 judgment, contending that the writ petition was disposed of without hearing him and that sufficient materials are available to dissuade the 1st respondent from proceeding with the matter, especially in view of the decrees passed by the civil court in a suits instituted between the parties in question. While disposing the Revision Petition, this court found that the first petitioner will get opportunity to show cause before the RDO with respect to such matters and it will be open to the 1st petitioner to bring to the notice of the 1st respondent about impact of the decrees passed by the civil court. However, it was observed by this court that the 1st respondent will advert to those materials before proceeding with further steps. Ext. P4 is the judgment of this court passed in the Review Petition.

(3.) The 1st petitioner produced Ext P4 judgment and all relevant documents in support of their contentions, before the 1st respondent. Even though hearing was conducted, no order was issued by the 1st respondent. But the petitioners were served with Ext. P5 and P6 notices issued by the Taluk Surveyor, (3rd respondent) intimating that survey of the land comprised in Sy.No. 520/4 of Block No. 34 of Aluva West village will be conducted, and the petitioners were requested to be present in person or through agent and to provide necessary assistance for conducting the survey. It is pointed out that in Ext. P5, reference was seen made about proceedings pending before the 1st respondent and about Ext. P2 judgment. According to the petitioners, the 1st respondent has no jurisdiction to direct survey and demarcation of the boundary of any property, in exercise of the powers vested under Section 133 Cr.P.C. Hence the petitioner is challenging the action initiated pursuant to Ext. P5 and P6 notices.