IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 7250 of 2010(E)
1. A.K.HUSAIN, AGED 65 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE STATE OF KERALA,
... Respondent
2. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
3. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
4. P.K.SUKUMARAN,
5. P.K.MUHAMMED ALI, PALAKANDI HOUSE,
For Petitioner :SRI.RAFFEEKH.K
For Respondent :SRI.K.A.SALIL NARAYANAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.M.JOSEPH
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS
Dated :09/03/2010
O R D E R
K. M. JOSEPH &
M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
W.P.(C).No. 7250 of 2010 E
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 9th day of March, 2010
JUDGMENT
Joseph, J.
The petitioner approached this Court for a direction to
respondents 1 to 3 to provide adequate police protection to the
life and property of the petitioner and his family members.
2. Briefly the case of the petitioner is as follows.
Petitioner is residing with his family at Puduppadi Village,
Adivaram in Kozhikode district. His house is situated in an
extent of 1.70 acres of land. The petitioner had relinquished
more than 10 cents of land for the Panchayat road nine years
back and that road is still maintained by the Panchayat in good
condition. However, the petitioner’s property was trespassed
W.P.(C).No. 7250 of 2010
2
again and cultivation in more than 10 cents of land was destroyed to
provide road access to the property of the 4th respondent. Petitioner
approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No. 18226 of 2009 and as per
Ext.P1 judgment it is directed that the building or any structures
belonging to the petitioner shall not be demolished unless there is
relinquishment in terms of the Kerala Land Relinquishment Act and
Rules or acquisition in terms of the Land Acquisition Act.
3. After that, the District Collector heard the parties and passed
Ext.P2 order on 11.2.2010. The Puduppadi Panchayat was directed
to acquire land as per the sketch and plan. The allegation is that
inspite of that order, respondents 4 and 5 are threatening the petitioner
saying that a new road through the property of the petitioner will be
constructed. The petitioner filed Ext.P3 complaint before the police
seeking police protection. The notice circulated by respondents 4 and
5 on 4.3.2010 is Ext.P4, which would show that a ‘march’ will be
W.P.(C).No. 7250 of 2010
3
conducted to the petitioner’s house. Respondents 4 and 5 are political
leaders and they will use mob to attach the petitioner and his family, it
is submitted.
4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for
respondents 4 and 5 as also the learned Government Pleader.
5. Learned counsel for respondents 4 and 5 would submit that
they have no objection in granting police protection to the petitioner.
According to them, the petitioner had agreed to relinquish his property
and part of the road was laid also pursuant to the promise of the
petitioner. We record the above submission of the learned counsel for
respondents 4 and 5 and direct that in case there is any threat to the life
of the petitioner or his property from respondents 4 and 5, respondents
1 to 3 will provide adequate protection for the life and property of the
petitioner made mention in the Writ Petition. We however make it
clear that this will certainly not stand in the way of the concerned
W.P.(C).No. 7250 of 2010
4
authority acquiring any part of the property of the petitioner in
accordance with law.
6. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above.
(K. M. JOSEPH)
Judge
(M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS)
Judge
tm