Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

days from the date of receipt of that order. It is the above order that is assailed in this revision petition.
8. According to the petitioners, there is no public pathway and it was part of the private property of the petitioners. The case of the petitioners is that persons, who are residing on the eastern side of the property of the petitioners, were allowed to pass through the property of the petitioners and for that purpose, a pathway having a width of 1= metres were given out by the petitioners and there never existed a public pathway having a width of 12 links. According to the petitioners, the respondents, who are the petitioners before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, are not the persons using the pathway. Therefore, according to the petitioners, the Sub Divisional Magistrate ought to have verified, the dispute between the petitioners and the respondents, that whether the alleged pathway is a private pathway voluntarily allowed by the petitioners having a width of 6 links or is it a public pathway having a width of 12 links as claimed by the Crl.R.PNO. 2089 of 2010 :-9-:

According to the respondents, the pathway which is starting from the National Highway ends at Laksham Veedu Colony. It is also the case of the respondents that when there was an attempt to reduce the width of the pathway by constructig a wall along 30 metres at the beginning of the pathway from the Highway, the same was questioned before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Alappuzha and in that case, the Sub Divisional Crl.R.PNO. 2089 of 2010 :-11-:

Magistrate has already found that there is a public pathway having the width of 12 links. Such findings are finally approved by this Court and thereafter, the illegal construction was demolished on 16.10.2004 thereby executing that order. It is subsequently, that the petitioners, whose properties are lying continuously on the eastern side of the property of which the previous proceedings were initiated and covered, obstructed the general public from using the public pathway by installing post and fence and thereby reduced the 12 links width of the public pathway to six links. So, according to the respondents, the present attempt of the petitioners is diametrically against the judgment of this Court in Crl.R.P.No.1062 of 1995. It is also the claim of the respondents that by a common judgment dated 20.8.2007 in Crl.R.P.No.2604 of 2006 and W.P(C) No.34330 of 2005, this Court has confirmed the right of public pathway and the present attempt of the petitioners is to deny the right to enjoy the public pathway, which was already declared by this Court. Crl.R.PNO. 2089 of 2010 :-12-:
indicated earlier, Annexure R3(a) judgment arose out of a dispute connected with the very same pathway, but the property therein lies on the western segment of the very same pathway. Annexure R3 judgment is in Crl.R.P.No.1062 of 1995 wherein also the proceedings originated under Section 133 of Cr.P.C. Therefore, when a conditional order was issued under Section 133, the respondents therein appeared and denied the right of public pathway consequent to which an enquiry under Section 137 was conducted. But, during such enquiry, the Sub Divisional Magistrate found that 12 links width public pathway was in existence. Finally, recognising the public pathway, the Sub Divisional Magistrate issued an order under Section 138 of the Cr.P.C. directing to remove the obstruction. That order was challenged before the Sessions Court and the Sessions Court, setting aside the order issued under Section 138, held that the dispute regarding the width of the pathway must be resolved by civil proceedings. It is against the above order of the Sessions Court, the above revision petition was filed which Crl.R.PNO. 2089 of 2010 :-24-:

30. In the present case, as indicated earlier, this Court, by two separate judgments, recognised the existence of 12 links width pathway, starting from the National Highway and ending at Laksham Veedu Colony, which is being used by the general public and the pathway in dispute is the continuation of the said pathway. The revision petitioners have no right to Crl.R.PNO. 2089 of 2010 :-40-:

obstruct the right of the general public to use such pathway as a public pathway and they have miserably failed to adduce any reliable evidence in favour of them. Therefore, the order dated 9.6.2010 in File No.F-1224/2005(D) of the Sub Divisional Magistrate is legal, correct and proper and no interference is warranted. Accordingly, there is no merit in the revision petition.