IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 6833 of 2010(D)
1. MARIYAMMA GEORGE, W/O. K.GEORGE,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
... Respondent
2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
3. DAMODHARAN PILLAI K.N.,
For Petitioner :SRI.C.RAJENDRAN
For Respondent :SRI.P.SREEKUMAR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.M.JOSEPH
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS
Dated :15/07/2010
O R D E R
K. M. JOSEPH &
M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
W.P.(C).No. 6833 of 2010 D
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 15th day of July, 2010
JUDGMENT
Joseph, J.
The petitioner has filed this Writ Petition for a direction to
respondents 1 and 2 to give adequate and effective police
protection to the life of the petitioner and her husband from the
third respondent and protection for the construction of the
compound wall at the boundary of the third respondent in
continuation of the existing compound wall at the expense of
the petitioner.
2. Briefly the case of the petitioner is as follows.
Petitioner is a retired school teacher. Her husband is also a
retired school teacher. They alone are living in their house. The
third respondent is their close neighbour. The properties of the
petitioner and the third respondent are lying adjacent to each
W.P.(C).No. 6833 of 2010
2
other. The third respondent constructed a shop building at the edge of
the boundary separating the two properties. The third respondent cut
and removed the branches of the trees, which are hanging to the
property of the third respondent, without obtaining the consent of the
petitioner and her husband. The third respondent closed the way of the
petitioner to get into the road.
3. On 3.8.2009 the third respondent and his henchmen
trespassed into the property of the petitioner and started to plaster the
building of the third respondent. When the petitioner and her husband
objected, the third respondent abused them and tried to beat the
petitioner. There is a further allegation of an incident, which is
alleged to have taken place on 15.8.2009. The petitioner filed W.P.
(C) 24823 of 2009. In the said writ petition there was a conciliation
conference, wherein the disputes were settled amicably. True copy of
judgment in th said writ petition is Ext.P1, the relevant portion of
which reads as follows:
W.P.(C).No. 6833 of 2010
3
” In the process of conciliation the parties have
agreed that the construction of the compound wall
will be completed at the expenses of the petitioner. It
is also submitted that the petitioner will not cause any
obstruction for plastering of the existing compound
wall. We direct the petitioner to complete the
construction within six months. We hope that the
parties will continue to strengthen their healthy
relationship which they have resumed today and they
should be the model neighbours for the entire people
of the locality. In view of th settlement of the
disputes as above, we are of the view that it is not
necessary for the parties to continue any further
litigation in this regard. Hence, in order to secure the
ends of justice, the criminal proceedings are also to be
pout an end to. Accordingly we quash the
proceedings in FIR 884/09 on the file of Kundara
Police Station.”
4. Petitioner had attempted to complete the compound wall as
directed by this Court. But the third respondent objected the same.
W.P.(C).No. 6833 of 2010
4
The petitioner and the third respondent did not comply with the
direction of this Court. Later third respondent constructed a
compound wall and shop building at the western extremity of his
boundary. The remaining portion extending from the partly
constructed compound wall is to be completed. As per the terms of the
agreement it has to be done by the petitioner. It means that the
remaining portion of the compound wall has to be constructed in
continuation of the existing compound wall at the boundary of the
property of the third respondent touching the boundary of the
petitioner at the expense of the petitioner. It is seen that the
agreement was that the respondent would get a compound wall
constructed without incurring any expense and for the money being
spent by the petitioner she should would get a compound wall without
the loss of the property at the boundary of her property. Against this
agreement, the third respondent obstructed the construction. Hence
W.P.(C).No. 6833 of 2010
5
the petitioner filed Contempt Petition, C.O.C. 106 of 2010, which was
disposed of as follows:
“If the petitioner could not comply with the
direction as contained in the judgment, his remedy is
to approach the court for necessary police
protection and not to file a contempt application
since the direction issued is against himself.”
5. A counter affidavit is filed by the third respondent producing
Exts. R3(a) to R3(i), wherein it is stated, inter alia, as follows.
“8. It is mot respectfully submitted that the
intention of the petitioner’s son is to harass me and
they are using their parents as a shield and filing
cases against me by raising baseless allegations. The
petitioner’s sons want an illegal gain by constructing
compound wall in my property. It is also very clear
from paragraph 10 of the writ petition. I never
threatened the petitioner or her men in any occasion.
W.P.(C).No. 6833 of 2010
6
This Hon’be Court quashed Ext.R3(g) FIR on the
basis of the assurance given by the petitioner that she
will plaster the demolished portions of the plaster of
the wall of the shop room. Believing the words of the
petitioner and her sons I did not file any review
against Ext.P3 judgment with due respect to this
Hon’ble Court. In the meantime the petitioner
cheated the 3rd respondent and escaped from criminal
liability.”
6. No reply affidavit as such was filed. The parties were
referred for a mediation on 3.6.2010, but the matter was not settled.
7. We heard learned counsel for the parties. Admittedly the
petitioner obtained Ext.P1 judgment, wherein it i stated, inter alia, that
the parties have agreed that the construction of the compound wall will
be done at the expense of the petitioner and the petitioner will not
cause any obstruction to the existing compound wall. The petitioner
was directed to construct the compound wall within six months. On the
one hand the case of the petitioner is that as the expenses is to be borne
W.P.(C).No. 6833 of 2010
7
by the petitioner, the compound wall is to be constructed in the
property of the respondent. Learned counsel for the third respondent
submits that there was no such agreement.
8. In the nature of the disputes, it will be appropriate for us to
direct the official respondents to give protection to the petitioner as
sought for. We make it clear that the parties are free to approach
appropriate forum seeking appropriate orders.
(K. M. JOSEPH)
Judge
(M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS)
Judge
tm