Judgment : The petitioner Panchayat is aggrieved of Ext. P1 order passed by the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions, whereby the appeal preferred by the first respondents was allowed and the Secretary of the Panchayat was directed to take a decision on the application dated 20.9.2006 filed by the first respondent for permission to construct a compound wall after getting the boundary separating her property from the adjacent road fixed through the Taluk Surveyor and considering the width of the road as shown in the site plan. 2. The case projected by the petitioner is that the concerned road is having a width of 8 meters, though it was having only a width of 6.10 meters way back in 2003 i.e. before the surrender of the properties lying on the side of the road by the adjacent owners for widening the road. The first respondent became the owner of the property only on 31.08.2006 as borne by Ext.R(b) produced along with the counter affidavit filed by the first respondent, whereby an extent of 8 cents of land comprised in Sy.No.261/1-2 was conveyed to her by her husband Kamalasanan Achari. According to the petitioner, prior to conveyance of the above property to the first respondent, Kamalasanan Achari had already surrendered the relevant portion of the property for widening the road, to have a total width of 8 meters. The first respondent, immediately after obtaining the ownership, possession and title over the property submitted an application for getting permission for constructing the compound wall showing the width of the road only as 6.10 meters. In the meanwhile, various complaints by way of mass petitions, lawyers’ notice, etc. were received by the panchayat stating that there was a conscious attempt from the part of the first respondent to encroach into the portion of the land being utilized as road, which was sought to be intercepted. Pursuant to the said complaints, the President of the Panchayat directed to place the application filed by the first respondent before the ‘Panchayat Committee’ for consideration. After considering the relevant facts and figures, the Committee chose to reject the application asking the applicant to submit a revised plan and sketch showing the width of the road as ‘8 meters’, for granting sanction to construct the compound wall. 3. After considering the relevant facts and figures, the Committee chose to reject the application asking the applicant to submit a revised plan and sketch showing the width of the road as ‘8 meters’, for granting sanction to construct the compound wall. 3. Aggrieved by the said proceedings, the first respondent filed an appeal before the tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions, Thiruvananthapuram. Both the parties sought to substantiate their case before the Tribunal by producing relevant documents/files. It is the case of the Panchayat that even though the file containing the relevant proceedings was produced before the Tribunal on the date of hearing, it was held that the same was “not produced on time” and hence was not looked into by the Tribunal before passing the impugned order, which hence is subjected to challenge. 4. The first respondent has filed a detailed counter affidavit referring to the sequence of events including the earlier action when she was made to approach this court by filing W.P.(C) 16037 of 2003 apprehending trespass into her property by the Panchayat and some others in their attempt to widen the road, which culminated in Ext. R4(a) judgment dated 24.07.2003 recording the submission made from the part of the Panchayat that there was no proposal to widen the road. However, it is pointed out that the compound wall of the first respondent situated on the side of the road was demolished by some miscreants on 27.08.2004, which led to registration of Crime No.404 of 2004 by the Police. During the pendency of the above proceedings before this Court, a member of the locality filed I.A. No. 2968 of 2007 seeking to implead him in the party array, projecting himself as a beneficiary of the road and producing various documents as Annexures I to IV. During the pendency of the above proceedings before this Court, a member of the locality filed I.A. No. 2968 of 2007 seeking to implead him in the party array, projecting himself as a beneficiary of the road and producing various documents as Annexures I to IV. Referring to the above documents, the learned counsel for the additional second respondent who was impleaded pursuant to the orders passed in the said I.A. and the learned counsel for the Panchayat submit that the directions given by the Tribunal vide Ext.P1 order to the Secretary of the Panchayat to consider the application preferred by the first respondent on the basis of the width of the road as shown in the permit issued by the Panchayat in 2003-04 (Ext.P5 produced before the Tribunal) cannot be held as correct or sustainable, for the pain reason that the aforesaid permit was issued before widening of the road; particularly in view of Annexure-I order dated 06.02.2004 (Proceedings of the District Collector) as to the sanctioning of the amount for widening the road (Produced along with I.A. No.2968 of 2007 for impleading the additional second respondent). It is further submitted by the learned counsel that the concerned property had already been surrendered by the husband of the first respondent as borne by Annexure IV proceedings dated 010.2003 and admittedly since the first respondent became the owner of the property only as per the title deed executed on 31.08.2006 i.e. after surrender, the first respondent is not at all entitled to contend that the compound wall had to be permitted to be constructed on the very same place where it was in existence earlier. 5. The first respondent has filed I.A.no. 10677 of 2008 seeking to accept some additional documents (judgment and decree dated 11.04 2008 in O.S. 646 of 2006 on the file of the Prl. Munsiff’s Court, Neyyattinkara), which is a case filed by some residents of the locality against Kamalasanan Achari (husband of the first respondent) and also against the first respondent seeking for permanent injunction restraining them from constructing any compound wall reducing the width of the road from 8 meters. The Panchayat was also subsequently impleaded as the additional third respondent in the above proceedings. On conclusion of the trial, the court, placing reliance on the report submitted by the Commissioner, dismissed the suit with costs and it has become final. The Panchayat was also subsequently impleaded as the additional third respondent in the above proceedings. On conclusion of the trial, the court, placing reliance on the report submitted by the Commissioner, dismissed the suit with costs and it has become final. Obviously, the said verdict was passed only subsequent to the proceedings pursued by the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institution leading to Ext.P1 Order. 6. The crucial question to be considered is whether any property had been ‘validly surrendered’ by the husband of the first respondent for widening the road and whether it had come into effect, so as to sustain the stand taken by the Panchayat and also by the additional second respondent. It is true that Annexure IV declaration was submitted by the husband of the first respondent on 010.2003 in the prescribed form making a declaration that the rights and interest of ownership of the land were being surrendered unconditionally. Under Column No.3 of the declaration, the area of the land was shown as 8 cents and the extent of the property shown as being surrendered was stated as having a width of 2.5 meters. Absolutely no materials have been produced from the part of the Panchayat or the additional second respondent to show that Annexure –IV declaration for surrender has been validly effected. 7. It is pertinent to note that the relinquishment of the rights over the property can only be effected under the relevant provisions of the kerala Land Relinquishment Act, in accordance with the procedure under Section 4 therein. Even though Annexure-IV application was submitted by the concerned party before the Triubunal, it was for the Panchayat to have it forwarded to the competent authority to have it taken to a logical conclusion. The step taken by the Pacnhayat in this regard of the outcome are not discernible from any of the proceedings placed before this Court or before the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions. 8. Another important aspect to be looked into is that the concerned person who preferred Annexure-IV application for relinquishment of the property has conveyed the entire extent of 8 cents to the children of the first respondent as per the Assignment Deed dated 31.08.2006. 8. Another important aspect to be looked into is that the concerned person who preferred Annexure-IV application for relinquishment of the property has conveyed the entire extent of 8 cents to the children of the first respondent as per the Assignment Deed dated 31.08.2006. Absolutely nothing has been mentioned in the said deed as to the surrender of any portion of the above extent of land and on the other hand, the boundaries of the properties are clearly mentioned in the schedule given thereunder. In other words, the entire extent of the property stands conveyed to the transferees by virtue of said deed before the relinquishment sought to be made by Annexure-IV, came into effect. No residual rights or proceedings were left in favors of anybody, by the transferor. By virtue of the above conscious decision, all the rights and interests over the property enjoyed by the transferor stood transferred to the transferees for valid consideration and the transferees started to enjoy the same with absolute ownership, exclusive possession and with clear and marketable title. As such, the order passed by the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institution, Thiruvanathapuram, on the basis of the available pleadings and evidence placed before it, cannot be rendered as defective in any manner. This being the position, no interference is warranted in this writ petition filed by the Panchayat. In the above circumstances, this court does not find any tenable ground to interfere. However, this will be without prejudice to the right of the Panchayat to proceed with further steps, if any, to approach the appropriate authorities for establishing the alleged relinquishment as having validly made and accepted and also without prejudice to the rights of the Panchayat, if they find it fit and proper to have the property acquired under the relevant provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. The challenge against Ext.P1 fails and the writ petition is dismissed accordingly.