The petitioner has approached this Court challenging the proceedings issued by the first respondent/Secretary, Grama Panchayat vide Ext.P1. The case of the petitioner is that he is the father of the person, who is having property in R.Sy.No.21 in Block No.17 in Erathu Village covered by Gift Deed No.3435 of 2012 of SRO, Adoor. It is stated that there is a compound wall on the northern boundary of the said property, which according to the petitioner was constructed nearly 30 years back. It is stated that the proceedings have been pursued by the Secretary at the instance of the second respondent/M.C.Joseph, who is a neighbour and who is having property on the southern side of the property belonging to the son of the petitioner, alleging that the petitioner has reduced the pathway on the eastern boundary, which according to the petitioner is not at all true or correct. It is also stated that the first respondent Secretary does not have any power, jurisdiction or competence to have issued Ext.P1 proceedings and hence the challenge.
2. The second respondent has filed a counter affidavit pointing out that the compound wall was constructed by the petitioner himself in the year 1997 when the second respondent was out of station. Immediately on coming across the steps taken by the petitioner, whereby a portion of pathway, which originally was having the width of 2.2 Metres was reduced and appropriated to considerable extent by constructing the compound wall, the same was sought to be interfered by filing necessary proceedings before different authorities and the matter was pending consideration at different levels. Finally, the issue came to be settled in the 'Lok Adalat' as borne by Ext.R2(f)award dated 23.11.2013. It is revealed from the said proceedings, that the concerned Village Officer was also present, who submitted that she had inspected the spot and found that the pathway was having a width of 'two metres'. The petitioner herein, who was the first counter petitioner in the above proceedings had agreed that he would not cause any obstruction to 'two metres' pathway (though the original width of the pathway as sought to be asserted from the part of the second respondent was 2.2. metres.) It was accordingly, that the proceedings were finalised as per Ext.R2(f), directing the first respondent/Secretary to dispose of the case and to report compliance. It was pursuant to Ext .R2(f), that the first respondent Secretary issued Ext.P1 notice to the petitioner, which made the petitioner to challenge the competency of the secretary.
3. The learned Counsel for the first respondent Panchayat submits that the petitioner has not chosen to challenge Ext.P1 by availing the statutory remedy, as such a course is available to the petitioner as envisaged under Section 276 of the Panchayat Raj Act. But the fact remains that Ext.P1 is only a consequential proceeding; pursuant to Ext.R2(f) award and that the petitioner has not chosen to challenge Ext.R2(f). That apart, the petitioner was the owner of the property at the time of construction of the compound wall and also during the pendency of the proceedings at different levels, till he executed a Gift Deed, thus making him eligible to contend that the owner is his son and that he is working elsewhere. If the property actually belongs to his son, the petitioner does not have any 'locus standi' to approach this Court by filing this writ petition, in so far as the present writ petition has not been filed on the basis of any power of attorney executed by the son. For this reason alone, the petitioner is liable to be non-suited. That apart, as mentioned above, Ext.R2 (f) award has become final and there is no challenge with regard to the said proceedings either in this writ petition or elsewhere. Accordingly, interference is declined and the writ petition is dismissed.
P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE lk