IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C) No. 18426 of 2007(R)
1. SOMASEKHARA PILLAI, S/O. RAGHAVA PILLAI,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
... Respondent
2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
3. KESAVAN,
4. THANKAMMA, W/O. KESAVAN,
5. UNNI, S/O. KESAVAN,
6. VINAYAN, S/O. KESAVAN,
7. DAYAN @ KANNAPPAN, S/O. KESAVAN,
For Petitioner :SRI.C.RAJENDRAN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice HARUN-UL-RASHID
Dated :24/08/2007
O R D E R
K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & HARUN-UL-RASHID, JJ.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
W.P.(C) No.18426 of 2007 - R
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dated, this the 24th day of August, 2007
JUDGMENT
Balakrishnan Nair, J.
The petitioner is the owner of 52 cents of land in Kizhakke Kallada
village. It is bounded by well-defined boundaries, it is submitted. The
respondents Nos.3 to 7 are his neighbours. They are having other
pathways to reach the nearby public roads. But they claimed a right of
way through the petitioner’s property. They moved the RDO. Under the
impression that the pathway is a public pathway, the RDO passed a
preliminary order directing the Sub Inspector of Police to remove a
concrete slab, the petitioner submits. Based on the preliminary order, the
petitioner submits, the concrete slab erected by the petitioner as part of
the compound wall was removed. Later, the matter was finally heard. The
RDO found that the pathway is not a public pathway. Since he has no
jurisdiction to proceed with the matter further, the proceedings were closed
by Ext.P9 order vacating the preliminary order. Petitioner submits, he
wants to put back the slab removed pursuant to the preliminary order of
the RDO and for that he requires police protection.
2. From the materials produced in this petition, it would appear that
the contesting respondents are claiming right of way through the
petitioner’s property. Though the petitioner vehemently disputes their
claim, it is not a matter which can be decided by this court or by the police.
WPC No.18426/2007 Page numbers
Only the civil court can take a decision in the matter. But the learned
counsel for the petitioner submits that the RDO should have issued
appropriate orders to put back the slab which was removed pursuant to his
preliminary order. If that be so, the petitioner may move the RDO for
appropriate reliefs in that regard. Subject to that observation, the writ
petition is closed.
K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR
JUDGE
HARUN-UL-RASHID,
JUDGE.
mt/