The grievance of the petitioner is regarding the construction of a retaining wall on the southern side of Alakathodu or Neerampuzhathodu that passes through the southern side of his property. The contention of the petitioner is that during rainy season water level in the canal used to rise and the property of the petitioner used to immerse in water. To prevent this a retention wall with a height of 4 feet was constructed by the Panchayat and thereafter the petitioner increased its height further. Now, what is under challenge is the construction of the retention wall on the other side. Essentially, the contention of the petitioner is that it is constructed in such a manner to reduce the width of the thodu and therefore if it is allowed upon completion of construction the free flow of the water through the thodu would be hampered and it might cause collapse of the retention wall besides causing erosion of land. Apprehending such a situation and raising grievance against the present construction the petitioner preferred Ext.P2 complaint before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Muvattupuzha. He had also preferred Ext.P3 complaint before the Village Officer,Manjalloor. Despite the receipt of Exts.P2 and P3 complaints the RDO as also the Village Officer took no steps and in the meanwhile the retention wall was constructed. It is in the said circumstances that the petitioner filed this writ petitions seeking the following reliefs:- “a) Issue a Writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ orders or directions to the respondents 1 to 3 to remove the retention wall constructed on the southern side of 'Alakathode' within the Manjalloor Panchayat reducing the width of the canal and reconstructed it in such a way as to protect the canal in its original condition and also protecting the puramboke land adjoining the canal and the properties of respondents 4 to 8.
b) Direct the respondents to stop the construction of the retaining wall on the southern side of the 'Alakathode' which is within the limits of the 1st respondent panchayath which is being proceeded by reducing the width of the canal.
c) Direct the respondents to pay the cost of the proceedings to the petitioner'.”
2. A perusal of the prayers of the petitioner itself would reveal that the construction of the retention wall on the southern side of Alakathode within the limits of Manjalloor Panchayath was already over. The petitioner requires removal of the retention wall already constructed. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the second respondent in the writ petition. It is stated therein that the petitioner resides on the northern bank of Alakathode (Neerampuzhathode) and respondents 4 to 8 are having lands on the southern side. It is further stated therein that the height of the retention wall constructed on the northern side of the thodu is more than 14 feet and that the said fact was specifically stated in the paragraph 2 of the writ petition itself. The said retention wall was constructed by the Panchayat and later the petitioner himself increased the height of the same. Height of the retentions wall constructed on the southern side only 1.5 metres i.e., 5 feet. In the said circumstances it is stated therein that the height difference between the property of the petitioner and the respondents 4 to 8 is almost 7 feet. This position is not disputed by the petitioner by filing a reply affidavit. The said fact is not at all disputed and it is, virtually, admitted by the petitioner. If that be so, even in case of spate there will not be any question of water entering into the property of the petitioner before which it flows into the property of respondents 4 to 8 as the properties of respondents 4 to 8 admittedly, lie at a lower level. In such circumstances it is understandable as to what is the prejudice caused to the petitioner owing to the construction of the retention wall on the southern side. Even before the construction of the retention wall and even after construction of retention wall if the water level is increased in the thodu it will necessarily flow firstly into the properties belonging to respondents 4 to 8. When on the side of the property of the petitioner a retention wall of 14 feet was already constructed and admittedly over and above same the petitioner himself effected further construction to increase its height, the petitioner is not justified in raising grievances against the construction of a retention wall on the other side. The contention that on account of the construction of the retention wall on the southern side the width of the canal was reduced also cannot be a reason for this Court to issue any direction to the respondent authorities to demolish the retention wall already constructed. When the land owners on the southern side are not prepared to surrender lands for the purpose of construction of a retention wall on the side of the canal necessarily it can be constructed and it was in fact constructed only in the manner in which it was done. The contention of the petitioner actually reveal that construction of retention wall on the sides of the Thodu canal in question was inevitable. The petitioner cannot be heard to say that he alone is having a right to get his property protected and the others residing on the southern side of the Thodu are also having a similar right. When it is admitted that the Panchayth constructed a retention wall on the northern side where the petitioner's property lies I do not find any illegality in the action on the part of the respondents in effecting construction of a retention on the southern side also for protecting banks of the Thodu. In the said circumstances I do not find any illegality in the impugned action. In the said circumstances this writ petition is liable to fail and accordingly it is dismissed.
Sd/-
C.T.RAVIKUMAR,JUDGE.
dlk