← Library
High Court of KeralaCrl.MC/4660/2015allowed

P.S.Balamani v. The Sub Divisional Magistrate

2015-12-16Honourable Mr. Justice B.Kemal Pasha5 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.KEMAL PASHA WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2015/25TH AGRAHAYANA, 1937 Crl.MC.No. 4660 of 2015 () --------------------------- MC. NO.18/2015 OF SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE COURT, THRISSUR. ........

PETITIONER/COUNTER PETITIONER IN MC NO.18/2015:-: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- P.S. BALAMANI, AGED 41 YEARS, W/O. RAJUNARAYANAN, RESIDING AT NADUKKADUPARAMBIL HOUSE, PARAMELPADITHERUVU, KONDAZHI, THRISSUR.

BY ADV. SRI.T.RAJASEKHARAN NAIR.

RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANTS:- ----------------------------------------------------

1. THE SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE, CIVIL STATION, THRISSUR - 680 001.

2. THE ADDITIONAL TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, THALAPPILLY TALUK, WADAKKANCHERY, THRISSUR - 680 001.

3. THE TALUK SURVEYOR, THALAPPILLY TALUK, WADAKKANCHERY, THRISSUR - 680 001.

4. KRISHNAVENI, PARAMELPADITHERUVU, KONDAZHI VILLAGE, THRISSUR - 680 001.

5. SUNDARAN P.S., PARAMELPADITHERUVU, KONDAZHI, THRISSUR - 680 001.

6. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA.

R1 TO R3 & R6 BY SRI.P. VIJAYARAGHAVAN, STATE ATTORNEY. R4 & R5 BY ADVS. SRI.SANTHOSH P.PODUVAL, SMT.R.RAJITHA.

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16-12-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

rs.

Crl.MC.No. 4660 of 2015 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:- ANNEXURE A.

THE TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT PASSED BY THE MUNSIFF COURT, WADAKKANCHERY IN O.S.NO.261/2000. ANNEXURE B.

THE TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE FIR NO.1213/2014, REGISTERED BY THE PAZHAYANNOOR.

ANNEXURE C.

A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE THRISSUR DYSP.

ANNEXURE D.

A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

ANNEXURE E.

A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

ANNEXURE F.

A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.

ANNEXURE G.

A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.

ANNEXURE H.

A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.

RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES:- NIL.

//TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE rs.

B. KEMAL PASHA, J.

................................................................ CRL.M.C. No. 4660 of 2015 ............................................................... Dated this the 16th day of December, 2015

O R D E R

Alleging that a public pathway was obstructed, the 4th and 5th respondents as petitioners approached the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate, Thrissur, through M.C.No.18/2015. The learned Sub Divisional Magistrate has passed Annexure G order, in the form of a conditional order, directing the removal of obstructions and for the reconstruction of the pathway.

2.

It is the case of the petitioner that under the guise of Annexure G order a pathway was constructed as a motorable road through the property of the petitioner. 3.

The learned State Attorney has filed a statement

CRL.M.C.No. 4660 of 2015 -: 2 :- of the Additional Tahsildar, Thalappilly, Vadakkanhery, whcih specifically shows that there is no such road as per the survey records. At the same time, during the site inspection there was a road having a length of 60 meters approximately and a width of 3.2 meters at the western end and 2.6 meters at the eastern end. The report is dated 7.8.2015.

4.

It seems that, essentially, it is a dispute of a private nature, which is purely of civil nature. The learned Sub Divisional Magistrate cannot interfere in a private dispute with regard to a pathway. Even if such a pathway exists or not, from the statement filed by the Additional Tahsildar, it has come out that it is not a public pathway and such a pathway does not find a place in the survey records. Matters being so, if at all there is any grievance for the respondent with regard to such a pathway, he can approach the competent civil court for the redressal of such grievance. Matters being so, by leaving the matter as a civil dispute

CRL.M.C.No. 4660 of 2015 -: 3 :- between parties, purely with regard to the existence or otherwise of private pathway, all the proceedings in Annexure G order in M.C.18/2015 of the Sub Divisional Magistrate's Court, Thrissur, are liable to be quashed. In the result, this Crl.M.C. is allowed and all the proceedings in Annexure G order in M.C.18/2015 of the Sub Divisional Magistrate's Court, Thrissur, as against the petitioner, are hereby quashed.

Sd/- B.KEMAL PASHA, JUDGE ul/- [True copy] P.S. to Judge