Petitioner is the daughter of the departed couple one Thayyil Moithu and Chelengara Cheriyappu Kurikkal. The contention of the petitioner is that by virtue of Exts.P1 and P2, her father became pattadar in respect of 54 cents of land comprised in Re-survey No.201/2 of erstwhile Valluvanadu Taluk, Edapatta Amsom in Malappuram District. It is her further contention that one Theyyunni of Edapatta Amsom forged documents to claim ownership over some extent of the said property and ultimately its ownership reached into the hands of respondents 3 and 4. Thereupon, respondents 3 and 4 constructed a shed in the said property and applied for building number and electricity connection. On coming to know about it, the petitioner filed Ext.P3 objection before the second respondent against assignment of building number to facilitate electricity connection to the aforesaid shed. The prayer of the petitioner is for issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding the second respondent not to grant building number and not to facilitate steps for granting electricity connection to the shed constructed by respondents 3 and 4 in the aforesaid property. A careful scanning of the contentions in paragraphs 3 and 4 of the writ petition would reveal that the issue involved in this case is essentially a civil dispute. The petitioner did not have a case that the respondents 3 and 4 had violated the provisions of Kerala Panchayat Building Rules or any of the provisions of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act. The case of the petitioner is that respondents 3 and 4 have forged documents and they would have obtained ownership over some extent of the aforesaid property illegally. At the same time, it is to be noted that the pleadings to that effect is too vague. Even the identity of Theyyunni who allegedly forged documents is not discernible from the pleadings. The relation between Theyyunni and respondents 3 and 4 is also not discernible. I am of the view that the issue involved in this case cannot be resolved under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In such circumstances, without prejudice to the right, if any, of the petitioner to move the competent civil court, in accordance with law, this writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
C.T. RAVIKUMAR (JUDGE) spc/ C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.
JUDGMENT September, 2010