IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 14886 of 2008(V)
1. ANU KOSHY, W/O. LATE KOSHY VARGHESE,
... Petitioner
2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
3. ASSANKANNU RAVUTHAR SHERIFKHAN,
4. NASEEM, W/O.ASSANKANNU,
Vs
1. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.MATHEW B. KURIAN
For Respondent :SRI.SANTHEEP ANKARATH
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR
The Hon'ble MRS. Justice M.C.HARI RANI
Dated :05/06/2008
O R D E R
K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ.
------------------------------------------
W.P.(C) No.14886 of 2008
------------------------------------------
Dated, this the 5th day of June, 2008
JUDGMENT
Balakrishnan Nair, J.
The petitioner owns 28 cents of land in Sy.No.1373/2 in
Vanchiyoor Village with a building thereon. She submits that her family
purchased the property under various sale deeds executed between
1988 and 1991. Recently, respondents 3 and 4 purchased a plot of
land adjacent to the above property. Soon thereafter certain persons
representing respondents 3 and 4 demolished the compound wall on
the eastern side of the petitioner’s property. She filed Ext.P1 complaint
before the police and based on that the police have registered Ext.P2
crime against eight persons who could be identified on sight. Even
thereafter the threat of demolition is continuing. Therefore, she preferred
Ext.P3 petition before the City Police Commissioner,
Thiruvananthapuram. The petitioner submits that she reconstructed the
compound wall which was again demolished. It is in the above
background this writ petition was filed seeking police protection to the
life and property of the petitioner. She also has a case that the second
respondent is harassing the petitioner at the instance of respondents 3
W.P.(C) No.14886 of 2008
2
and 4 who are part of the land mafia in Thiruvananthapuram.
2. Respondents 3 and 4 have filed a counter affidavit denying the
allegations against them. According to them, the petitioner is
trespassing into a portion of the property purchased by them claiming
that it belongs to her.
3. The petitioner filed a reply affidavit denying the allegations of
the party respondents and also producing documents of her property and
also the photographs of the compound wall stated to be demolished.
4. Learned Government Pleader upon instructions submitted that
based on the information lodged by the petitioner a crime has been
registered against eight unknown persons and it is being investigated.
5. Having regard to the nature of the dispute between the parties,
we feel that it is not proper to issue any direction to the police in this
matter. If the allegation of the petitioner that an existing compound wall
which is fairly old has been demolished by the party respondents or their
men is correct, it may amount to the criminal offence of mischief under
the Indian Penal Code. So the petitioner can pursue her remedies
before the competent civil court/criminal court. In this
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, this Court cannot
W.P.(C) No.14886 of 2008
3
finally pronounce on the disputed questions of fact without taking
evidence. If the dispute gives rise to any law and order problem, we are
sure the police will take necessary action in accordance with law for
maintaining peace.
With the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of
without prejudice to the contentions of both sides.
(K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR)
JUDGE
(M.C.HARI RANI)
JUDGE
vns