IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 18211 of 2008(R)
1. RAKESH G.MNAIR, S/O.GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY HOME
... Respondent
2. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
3. DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
4. C.I. OF POLICE
5. S.I. OF POLICE, MALAYINKEEZHU,
6. KRISHNAN NAIR, PAZHAVEEDU, PERUKAVU PO.,
7. RADHAKRISHNAN, PAZHAVEEDU,
For Petitioner :SMT.MAJIDA.S
For Respondent :SRI.R.V.SREEJITH
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR
The Hon'ble MRS. Justice M.C.HARI RANI
Dated :30/07/2008
O R D E R
K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ.
-------------------------------------
W.P.(C) No.18211 OF 2008
-------------------------------------
Dated this the 30th day of July, 2008
J U D G M E N T
~~~~~~~~~~~
Balakrishnan Nair, J.
The petitioner claims possession and ownership of ten
cents of land in Vilavoorkal Grama Panchayat. Reliance is
placed on Ext.P1 sale deed and Ext.P2 tax receipt in support of
that submission. He has obtained Ext.P3 building permit from
the Vilavoorkal Grama Panchayat. When he started
construction, the respondents 6 to 12 started causing
obstruction. Then he moved the civil court and obtained Ext.P4
interim injunction order against some of them. Even thereafter,
they continued the obstruction. So, the petitioner filed Ext.P5
representation before the Sub Inspector of Police,
Malayinkeezhu and Ext.P7 representation before the District
Superintendent of Police. Alleging that the police did not take
any effective action to protect him, this writ petition is filed.
W.P.(C) No.18211/2008 2
2. The respondents 6 to 12 have filed a counter affidavit
stating that the petitioner has got right over only eight cents of
property, but he is keeping in his possession 10 cents which
includes Thodupuramboke also. The present construction is
attempted, trespassing into the said puramboke land which he
has reduced to his possession. So, petitions were filed by the
local people including the party respondents before the Revenue
Divisional Officer, a copy of which is produced as Ext.R8(a).
Later, the Village Officer has issued Ext.R8(b) stop memo on
8.5.2008 prohibiting construction. The petitioner is threatening
the local people by employing muscle men. A news items has
been published about the same, a copy of which is produced as
Ext.R8(c). The Panchayat has also issued Ext.R8(d) stop memo
calling upon the petitioner to stop the construction. Therefore, it
is submitted that the petitioner is not entitled to get any
protection. For not placing the facts concerning Ext.R8(b),
before this Court, the the writ petition is liable to be dismissed
without hearing on merits, it is submitted.
W.P.(C) No.18211/2008 3
3. The petitioner has filed a reply affidavit denying the
allegations of the party respondents. He has produced Ext.P8
which would show that his predecessor in interest has got patta
for 1.5 cents of land and the said person has agreed to mutate
that property in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner has
produced Ext.P9 series of photographs to show the alleged
atrocities from the part of the party respondents. Ext.P10 F.I.R.
would show that a crime has been registered against some of the
party respondents for the offences punishable under Sections
143, 147, 149, 294(b) & 506(1) of Indian Penal Code. Ext.P11
would show that a complaint filed by the 7th respondent, against
the construction undertaken by the petitioner, has been closed
by the Ombudsman. Another complaint filed by one Mr.Praveen
has been dealt with by the Ombudsman as per Ext.P12 order. As
per that order, the Ombudsman has permitted the petitioner to
continue with the construction, it is submitted.
4. We heard the learned Government Pleader for the
respondents also. The right of the petitioner to continue the
construction and the alleged obstruction caused to the same by
W.P.(C) No.18211/2008 4
the party respondents etc. are matters which are pending before
the civil court. The police has no power or authority to interfere
in that matter in favour of one side or the other. But the
petitioner points out that he is being physically threatened with
harm by the party respondents. On other hand, the party
respondents would submit that petitioner’s muscle men are after
them and therefore they require police protection.
5. The petitioner is not entitled to get protection for his
life when he is in the work site and undertaking the construction.
Unless Ext.R8(b) is avoided in appropriate proceedings the
petitioner cannot seek protection from this Court to continue
with the construction. The orders of the Ombudsman will have
efficacy against the proceedings of the Panchayat and not
against the orders of the Village Officer. If the local people are
entering the work site and obstructing, he can pursue his
remedies before the Civil Court. But, if he goes around
attending to his normal other businesses and if anybody is
threatening him, he may inform the police. In that event, the
police shall look into the same and, if the allegation is found
W.P.(C) No.18211/2008 5
correct, take appropriate action. If the petitioner or his muscle
men are threatening the party respondents herein, they may also
inform the police. In that event, the police shall take appropriate
action on those motions also.
The writ petition is disposed of as above.
(K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE)
(M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE)
ps