JUDGMENT : This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to quash Ext.P3 order passed by the Ombudsman for Local Self Government Institutions in O.P.No.1189/2013 dated 14.08.2013, by which certain directions were issued to the Secretary of the 2nd respondent Grama Panchayat in order to separate the boundaries by and between he properties of the petitioner and the 1st respondent with the assistance of the Village Officer, and for further consequential actions. Material facts for the disposal of the writ petition are as follows: 2. The writ petitioner is the owner of the property having an extent of 6 cents situate in Re survey No.4418/4 of Kalliassery amsom of Kannur Taluk. According to the petitioner, petitioner has re constructed an old house situated in the said property after securing building permit from the Secretary of the Grama Panchayat. Since the 1st respondent is having property abutting the western side of the petitioner's property, petitioner has constructed the house without removing any soil from the property. The construction activities of the petitioner have also not affected the lateral support of the 1st respondent's property. However, 1st respondent has been making complaints before various authorities, but no action was initiated against the petitioner, having found that the complaints are frivolous. 3. It was thereupon that the 1st respondent approached the Ombudsman, alleging that the petitioner has removed soil from the property, due to which, there is likelihood of landslide and also it will affect the house of the 1st respondent. Petitioner has entered appearance and filed detailed objection to the complaint and also explaining the facts and circumstances. That apart, it was pointed out that there is a boundary dispute pending between the parties and the boundary is yet to be fixed. The property of the petitioner is lying in two levels and the property lying in the higher level abuts the defendant's property and it remains as it is. 4. In spite of the objections raised with respect to the power of the Ombudsman to consider such applications, directions are issued to separate the boundaries and then take consequential actions. The property of the petitioner is lying in two levels and the property lying in the higher level abuts the defendant's property and it remains as it is. 4. In spite of the objections raised with respect to the power of the Ombudsman to consider such applications, directions are issued to separate the boundaries and then take consequential actions. Therefore, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the order is passed by the Ombudsman without any power conferred under Sec.271 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, especially due to the fact that there are no allegations made against any of the authorities of the Panchayat, enabling the Ombudsman to exercise the powers conferred under the aforesaid provision. That apart, it is stated that, O.S.No.185 of 2013 filed by the petitioner is pending consideration before the Subordinate Judge's Court, Kannur. These are the background facts projected by the petitioner to quash Ext.P3 order passed by the Ombudsman. 5. A detailed counter affidavit is filed by the 3rd respondent, i.e., the Secretary of the Grama Panchayat, wherein various documents are produced. Among other contentions, it is stated that, the writ petitioner agreed to approach the Village Officer to demarcate the boundaries of the parties and to take appropriate steps to protect the boundary wall, which was pointed out by the 3rd respondent before the Ombudsman, evident from Ext.R3(b). The Panchayat has taken further action on account of the directions issued by the Ombudsman and Ext.R3(c) is a notice dated 31.10.2013. Accordingly, a site inspection was conducted with the assistance of the Village Officer and it was found that since earth was removed from the petitioner's property, it is necessary to protect the property of the 1st respondent by constructing a retaining wall. The writ petitioner was directed to do so, in accordance with the directions contained in Ext.P3 order passed by the Ombudsman, evident from Ext.R3(e) directions. Therefore, according to the 3rd respondent, there is no manner of illegality from the part of the 3rd respondent and the 3rd respondent was discharging its obligations on account of the directions contained in Ext.P3 order. 6. The 1st respondent has also filed a counter affidavit, wherein, it is stated that, in order to circumvent Ext.P3 order, a civil suit has been filed by the petitioner. 6. The 1st respondent has also filed a counter affidavit, wherein, it is stated that, in order to circumvent Ext.P3 order, a civil suit has been filed by the petitioner. It is also submitted that, Ext.P3 order passed by the Ombudsman has no legal infirmities to be interfered with by this Court, invoking the powers conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 7. I have heard respective counsel across the Bar and perused the pleadings and the documents on record. 8. The foremost contention advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner is that, there is no power vested with the Ombudsman to direct the Panchayat to demarcate the boundary of the property of the petitioner and the 1st respondent and then take consequential action in order to construct a retaining wall. The Ombudsman for Local Self Government Institutions is appointed as per the provisions of Chapter XXVB of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (for brevity, 'the Act, 1994'). Section 271J deals with the functions of the Ombudsman, which read thus : “271J. Functions of the Ombudsman.--(1) The Ombudsman shall perform all or any of the following functions, namely:-- (i) Investigate into any allegation contained in a complaint or on a reference from Government, or that has come to the notice of the Ombudsman; (ii) Enquire into any complaint in which corruption or maladministration of a public servant or a Local Self Government Institution is alleged; (iii) Pass an order on the allegation in the following manner, namely:- (a) Where the irregularity involves a criminal offence committed by a public servant, the matter shall be referred to the appropriate authority for investigation. (b) Where the irregularity causes loss or inconvenience to a citizen, direct the Local Self Government Institution to give him compensation and to reimburse the loss from the person responsible for the irregularity; (c) Where the irregularity involves loss or waste or misuse of the fund of the Local Self Government Institution, realise such loss from those who are responsible for such irregularity, and (d) Where the irregularity is due to omission or inaction cause to supply the omission and to rectify the mistake. (2) In addition to the functions enumerated in sub-section (1), the Ombudsman may pass interim order restraining the Local Self Government Institution from doing anything detrimental to the interest of the complainant if it is satisfied that much loss or injury will be caused to the complainant due to the alleged act. (3) The Ombudsman may by order, impose penalty in addition to compensation if it is of opinion that the irregularity involves corrupt practice or personal gain.” 9. On a reading of Sec.271J of Act, 1994, I am of the considered opinion that, the power of the Ombudsman is delineated so as to deal with any irregularity, corruption, maladministration etc. etc., or else, to investigate into any allegation contained in a complaint or on a reference from Government or that is come to the notice of the Ombudsman. In my considered view, there was no allegation with respect to any maladministration on the part of the Secretary of the Panchayat in carrying out any of the functions empowered on the Secretary under the provisions of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, or any of the attendant Rules. I could not locate under Act, 1994, any provision enabling the Secretary of the Panchayat to adjudicate a boundary dispute by and between two adjoining property owners and then fix the boundary. Therefore, it can never be said that there was any laches or lapses on the part of the Secretary of the Panchayat to enable the Ombudsman to pass the order in accordance with the functions provided under Sec.271J of Act, 1994. 10. That apart, Sec.271M deals with the power of the Ombudsman to conduct any investigation on the basis of a complaint filed before it under the provisions of Act, 1994. 10. That apart, Sec.271M deals with the power of the Ombudsman to conduct any investigation on the basis of a complaint filed before it under the provisions of Act, 1994. Sub-section (4) thereto creates a prohibition on the Ombudsman in respect of the matters enumerated hereunder: “(4) The Ombudsman shall not enquire into matters relating to- (a) any matter in respect of which a formal and public enquiry has been ordered by Government; (b) any matter in respect of which a remedy is available from the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions constituted under Section 271S; (c) any matter in respect of which an enquiry has been ordered under the Commission of Inquiries Act, 1952 (Central Act 60 of 1952) or any matter pending before a Court; (d) any complaint filed after the expiry of three years from the date on which the matter complained against have taken place: Provided that the Ombudsman may entertain such complaint if the complainant satisfies that he had sufficient reason for not filing the complaint within the specified period.” 11. Therefore, in my considered view, the Ombudsman did not have the power to entertain the complaint filed by the 1st respondent. Learned counsel for the petitioner in that regard has invited my attention to the judgment of this Court in 'Kuriyakose Thomas v. Ombudsman for Local Self Government Institutions & Others' [ 2013 (4) KLJ 440 ], wherein the functions of the Ombudsman were elaborately considered and has held in paragraph 17 as follows: “17. In the present case, the complaint before the Ombudsman was for demarcation of boundaries and removal of encroachment, which powers are not conferred on the LSGI. In the complaint so filed, measurement of properties, demarcation of boundaries etc. was directed. In the opinion of this Court, this exercise should have been ideally done by a Civil Court in a properly instituted proceeding and there ought to have been an adjudication on the basis of such report of measurement and demarcation as also the pleadings and other evidence adduced by parties. was directed. In the opinion of this Court, this exercise should have been ideally done by a Civil Court in a properly instituted proceeding and there ought to have been an adjudication on the basis of such report of measurement and demarcation as also the pleadings and other evidence adduced by parties. That obviously did not happen and the petitioner herein, who was a party in the complaint filed before the LSGI, was also not made a party before the Ombudsman.” Above all, when the empowerment under law is specific and clear, the authority is not expected to traverse beyond the same, assuming power from general law of the land and adjudicate issues, especially due to the fact that parties are at liberty to approach the civil court to ventilate their grievances. 12. So much so, as pointed out above, a civil suit is pending by and between the parties for fixation of the boundary. Therefore, the parties are at liberty to raise their respective claims in the suit proceedings. I am also informed that, against the report of the Advocate Commissioner, a proceeding is pending before this Court also. 13. After evaluating all these factual and legal aspects, I am of the firm opinion that, Ext.P3 order passed by the Ombudsman cannot be sustained under law, having been rendered without any power under the provisions of the Act, 1994. Therefore, I quash Ext.P3 order. However, I make it clear that, the observations and findings contained above are rendered only for the purpose of adjudicating the issue with respect to the power of the Ombudsman to pass Ext.P3 order and such observations and findings shall not stand in the way of the civil court entering into respective findings on the basis of the claims and rival claims made by the petitioner and the 1st respondent in the suit proceedings. The writ petition is allowed, subject to the above observations.