K.MOUDAMMAL Vs. ALFAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has approached this Court impugning Ext.P5 Ownership Certificate issued by the Secretary of Pathanapuram Grama Panchayat, on the allegation that it has been granted without hearing him. The petitioner thereafter concedes that pending this lis, he had obtained Ext.R1(d) document, which is the decision of the Secretary of the Panchayat leading to Ext.P5 and that he has challenged the said decision through Ext.P10 statutory appeal before the Committee of the said Panchayat. The petitioner, therefore, prays that Ext.P5 be set aside, since it has been issued without hearing him, and that the Panchayat be directed to take up and consider Ext.P10 appeal within a time frame.

(2.) The learned Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2 submits that. as is evident from Ext.P3, a decision had been taken earlier by the Secretary asking his clients to produce the authenticated copy of the Will with respect to their property and that it is only on production of the same that Ext.R1(d) decision was taken, leading to the issuance of Ext.P5 certificate. The learned counsel submits that since the petitioner has already challenged Ext.R1(d) through a process of law, by preferring Ext.P10 before the Panchayat Committee, this writ petition is not maintainable. He, therefore, prays that this writ petition be dismissed.

(3.) When I consider the submissions made and the materials available on record, it is prima facie evident that Exts.R1(d) and P5 had been issued without hearing the petitioner. However, since the petitioner has already chosen to challenge Ext.R1(d) before the Panchayat Committee, by preferring Ext.P10, I am certainly of the view that the said appeal must be decided and disposed of by the said Committee at the earliest, and without any further delay. Since the petitioner has already invoked his alternative remedy, I do not deem it appropriate that this Court should intervene in this matter at this stage.