THOMAS Vs. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has approached this Court seeking that Ext.P5 representation made before the Revenue Divisional Officer be directed to be considered.

(2.) When I examine Ext.P5, it become obvious that the petitioner's allegation is that the party respondents herein, who are stated to be his siblings, have constructed a granite foundation on a "Varambu" running through the boundaries of their properties and that this is solely to obstruct his right of way to his property. The petitioner, therefore, prays that the RDO be directed to look into this and remove the obstruction.

(3.) Even though, prima facie, I cannot find the complaints in Ext.P5 to be fully within the jurisdictional ambit or statutory competence of the RDO, since it involving civil rights of the parities concerned, I am inclined to grant a limited relief to the petitioner, solely to enable the RDO to assess whether the construction made by the party respondents is in violation of the applicable Statutes, Rules and Regulations. However, as regards that internecine civil disputes between the parties, the petitioner will have to intimate necessary action before the competent Court or other Forums, but not before the RDO.