Partly allowed

Edward v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC28 Jul 2010WP(C)/21500/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner sought police protection for constructing a house on purchased land, alleging harassment by the fifth respondent. The Court directed respondents 3 and 4 to provide protection but cautioned that unintentional illegalities in construction or land conversion could be acted upon by competent authorities.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents 3 and 4 to provide protection to the petitioner against obstruction by the fifth respondent.

Edward Vs State of Kerala — Landlord and Tenant | Kerala HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS WEDNESDAY, THE 28TH JULY 2010 / 6TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 21500 of 2010(J) ---------------------------------------------PETITIONER(S): ---------------------

¶4

EDWARD, AGED 40 YEARS, S/O.VARGHESE, KANNIKKATTU HOUSE, PANAVALLY, CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.

¶5

BY ADV. SRI.SHAIJAN C.GEORGE SRI.JOHN VIPIN SMT.S.REKHA KUMARI SMT.SAJITHA GEORGE SRI.ABHISHEK KURIAN

¶6

RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------

¶7

STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY HOME SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-01.

¶8

DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, CHERTHALA-688 524. 3. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHERTHALA-688 524.

¶9

SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, POOCHAKKAL POLICE STATION, CHERTHALA-688 524.

¶10

CHANDRAMOHAN, S/O.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR, 'KARTHIKA', PANAVALLY, CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT-688 524.

¶11

R1 TO R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. M.K. PUSHPALATHA.

¶12

ADV. SRI.K.P.JOSE PIOUS FOR R5 SRI.R.MURALIDHARAN (AROOR) FOR R5

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

APPENDIX IN W.P.(C).NO.21500 OF 2010 J

¶15

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶16

EXT.P1TRUE COPY OF SALE DEED NO.1937/09 DATED 8.9.2009.

¶17

EXT.P2TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE DT. 8.3.2010.

¶18

EXT.P3TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT NO.C.1575/KBR/08-09 DATED 17.3.2010.

¶19

EXT.P4TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DT. 20.6.10.

¶20

EXT.P5TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT CARD NO.2612/P1.212/10/SSD DATED 2.7.10.

¶21

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL.

¶22

// True Copy //

¶23

PS to Judge

¶24

K. M. JOSEPH & M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ.

¶25

W.P(C). NO. 21500 OF 2010 J

¶26

Dated this the 28^th July, 2010

¶27

JUDGMENT

¶28

K.M. Joseph, J.

¶29

Petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following reliefs:

¶30

“i) Direct respondents 1 to 4 to provide ample protection to construct the residence of the petitioner.

¶31

ii) Direct respondents 1 to 4 to provide protection to the life of the petitioner and his family members.”

¶32

Briefly put, the case of the petitioner is as follows:

¶33

Petitioner has managed to purchase 3.89 ares of land for construction of residential building. He obtained Possession Certificate and then prepared a house plan fully complying with the Kerala Building Rules and the Grama Panchayat, after due inspection, has issued building permit. It is stated that then onwards, the fifth respondent and his henchmen are harassing

¶34

WPC.21500/2010 J 2

¶35

and obstructing the peaceful bringing of the building materials to the property of the petitioner and thus caused obstruction to the construction. Fifth respondent is stated to be the Branch Secretary of Communist Party of India (Marxist). They are taking law into their hands and threatening that they will do away with the petitioner and his family.

¶36

Fifth respondent who has filed a Counter Affidavit to which the petitioner has filed a Reply Affidavit also, would submit that the fifth respondent is not obstructing the construction of the building by the petitioner. But, he would submit that the real issue is one of conversion of the paddy field by the petitioner. Learned Government Pleader would submit that the property is not a paddy field.

¶37

Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the Writ Petition is disposed of as follows:

¶38

There will be a direction to respondents 3 and 4 to provide protection to the petitioner in the matter of construction of the house building as against any obstruction by the fifth

¶39

WPC.21500/2010 J

¶40

¶41

respondent. However, we make it crystal clear that if there is any illegality committed by the petitioner in so far as the construction is going on the land which is converted without getting permission, this Judgment will not stand in the way of the competent authorities taking action in accordance with law

¶42

against the petitioner.

¶43

Sd/= K.M. JOSEPH, JUDGE Sd/= M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JUDGE kbk. // True Copy // PS to Judge

Edward v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Edward v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gigi Mathew Vs the District Superintendent of Police

Wireless Tt Info Services Ltd. Vs the Si of Police, Valapattanam Police

Prabhavathy Vs Director General of Police

K.T.Varghese Vs Circle Inspector of Police

Ajith Kumar Vs State of Kerala and Others

Anandan P.K Vs the Registrar of Co-Op. Soceities