G RAMDAS Vs. VAKKOM GRAMA PANCHAYAT AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has come to this Court with this petition for issue of directions to Respondents 2 and 3 to afford protection to the Petitioner against any attempt on the part of Respondents 4 to 9 to use/widen a pathway through his property.

(2.) According to the Petitioner, he is the owner of a parcel of 90 cents of land. Respondents 4 and 5 allegedly made attempts to cut out a pathway through the property of the Petitioner and the Petitioner, in these circumstances, approached the civil court. That proceedings finally ended with Ext.P1 judgment of this Court in the Second Appeal. Title of the Petitioner over the property was declared and Respondents 4 and 5 herein were prohibited from trespassing into the property. Subsequent to Ext.P1, it is submitted that Respondents 4 and 5 had executed Ext.P2 consent letter in which they had relinquished their rights to use the pathway through the property of the Petitioner. However, in Ext.P2 it is also stated that the said way has been used by members of the public for the past 60-70 years and it is to avoid any inconvenience to the others that Respondents 4 and 5 gave up their rights to use the said pathway. Subsequently the panchayat issued Ext.P3 notice against the Petitioner. It was replied to under Ext.P4. The Petitioner came to this Court and by Ext.P5 order, a learned Judge of this Court directed that the Petitioner must be heard before Ext.P3 proceedings are finalised. It is the case of the Petitioner now that Respondents 4 to 9 are attempting to cut out a pathway through the property in violation of the civil court's decree in Ext.P1.

(3.) All Respondents have been served. Only the 9th Respondent has entered appearance. The 9th Respondent is the local member of the Panchayat. The 9th Respondent raises a contention that there exists a pathway through the property of the Petitioner. Ext.P1 decree can bind only Respondents 4 and 5. Other Respondents and members of the public, who are using the pathway, are not bound by the said decree. According to Respondent No. 9, the Petitioner is attempting to make use of Ext.P1 decree to deny the rights of the members of the local public, who have been using such pathway as a matter of right. After the decree was secured, there was an attempt to block the pathway also, it is submitted. The 9th Respondent further points out that the said pathway has been widened. Only because of the objection of the Petitioner, it could not be widened through the property of the Petitioner. In these circumstances, it is prayed that the Petitioner may not be permitted to arm himself with an order of police protection, which is likely to be misutilised against the members of the public. This petition may, in these circumstances, be dismissed, it is submitted.