The petitioners have filed this writ petition complaining of encroachments allegedly made by the 5th respondent on a public road. The case of the petitioners is that, there is a Panchayat road abutting the property of the petitioners, the width of which has been reduced by the 5th respondent by committing trespass and construction of a compound wall.
2. Separate counter affidavits have been filed by the 1st respondent as well as the 5th respondent. The case of the 1st respondent is that, though the particular road is included in the Asset Register of the Panchayat, regarding the boundaries of the said road, there have been civil litigations. At present, O.S.No.29/2014 is pending before the Munsiff's Court, Sasthamcotta instituted by the 5th respondent. The Panchayat has received Ext.R1(i) notice in the said suit.
3. According to the 5th respondent who has filed a separate counter affidavit, O.S.No.199/1997 had ended in Ext.R5(a) judgment in her favour. There is another suit, O.S.No.346/2013 that is pending before the Munsiff's Court, Sasthamcotta. In the said suit, as per the orders of the Civil Court, a measurement of the property has been conducted by the Taluk Surveyor, according to the 5th respondent. The W.P.(C) No.7209 of 2014 2 counsel alleges that, the present writ petition has been filed in order to prejudice the interests of the 5th respondent in the civil litigations that are pending.
4. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties, I am not satisfied that any interference with the dispute is called for or necessary at this stage. It is clear that the dispute is pending adjudication of the Civil Court in the original suit referred to above. It is true that the petitioners are not parties to the civil litigations. However, it shall be open for the petitioners to get themselves impleaded in the said proceedings and to contest the matter or file a separate civil suit seeking a declaration of the right of way that they claim. Since the contentions of the parties indicate that, determination of disputed questions of fact are involved, I am of the view that it is better for the parties to approach Civil Court for appropriate reliefs.
In view of the above, this writ petition is dismissed, without prejudice to the right of the petitioners to approach Civil Court for appropriate reliefs.
Sd/-
K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE.
AV