Dismissed

K.Many v. the District Superintendent of Police

Kerala HC23 Mar 2011WP(C)/7375/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought directions under Article 226 for police protection against alleged threats by respondents 3-5 during a property border dispute regarding pathway widening. Court held that the matter relates to a civil dispute requiring civil court intervention, protection of life was covered by respondent undertaking, and dismissed the writ petition.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner to approach civil court for property dispute; no specific directions issued under Article 226 as police undertaking protection if threat materializes.

K.Many Vs the District Superintendent of Police — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT &

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN

¶5

WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD MARCH 2011 / 2ND CHAITHRA 1933

¶6

WP(C).No. 7375 of 2011(V) --------------------------------------

¶7

PETITIONER(S): ------------------------

¶8

K.MANY, S/O. THEYYAN, 'PUSHPAK', KUNNUMMAL, EDAVANNA P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-676 541.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.N.J.JOHNSON

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

---------------------------

¶12

1. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, MALAPPURAM, UP HILL P.O., MALAPPURAM,PIN-676 505.

¶13

2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, EDAVANNA POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT,PIN-676 541.

¶14

3. K.JITHESH BABU, KANDALAPPATTA HOUSE, KUNNUMMAL, EDAVANNA P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-676 541.

¶15

4. K.SUDHESH, KANDALAPPATTA HOUSE, KUNNUMMAL, EDAVANNA P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-676 541.

¶16

5. K.JISHAD, KANDALAPPATTA HOUSE, KUNNUMMAL, EDAVANNA P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-676 541.

¶17

R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. C.M.CHARISMA R3 TO R5 BY ADV. SRI.P.VENUGOPAL (1086/92)

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/03/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

Kss

¶20

WPC.NO.7375/2011 V

¶21

APPENDIX

¶22

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶23

P1: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT ON 28/02/2011.

¶24

P2: COPY OFTHE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT ON 1/03/2011.

¶25

P3: COPY OF THE F.I.R. NUMBER 67 OF 2011 OF THE EDAVANNA POLICE STATION.

¶26

P4: COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT SEEKING ADEQUATE POLICE PROTECTION.

¶27

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:

¶28

R3(A): COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 28/09/2003 SUBMITTED BY THE RESIDENTS IN THE LOCALITY TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE EDAVANNA GRAMA PANCHAYAT.

¶29

R3(B): COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 08/02/2011 SUBMITTED BY THE RESIDENTS IN THE LOCALITY TO THE VILLAGE OFFICER, EDAVANNA VILLAGE.

¶30

R3(C): COPY OF THE AGREEMENT SIGNED BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT AND THE MANAGER OF THE ISLAHIYA SCHOOL AND ANOTHER ON 14/2/2011.

¶31

R3(D): COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT.

/TRUE COPY/

P.S.TO JUDGE

Kss

R.BASANT &

K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ.

¶37

W.P(C) NO: 7375 OF 2011 V

¶38

----------------------------------------------------------Dated this the 23^rd March, 2011.

¶39

JUDGMENT

¶40

Basant, J.

¶41

Petitioner has come to this Court for issue of directions under Art. 226 of the Constitution to respondents 1 and 2 to afford protection to the life, person and property of the petitioner.

¶42

According to the petitioner respondents 3 to 5 are children of his brother. The petitioner and respondents 3 to 5 own properties. Petitioner's property is on the north whereas property of respondents 3 to 5 is on the south. To the east of the property of the petitioner and respondents 3 to 5 is the property of a school. Between the two there is a pathway. Proposals have been made to widen the pathway. According to the petitioner he has not agreed for any such widening of the pathway giving any portion of his property. Respondents 3 to 5 are taking law into their hands and attempting to demolish the compound wall on the eastern side of his property. Respondents 3 to 5 are threatening the life and person of the petitioner. In

¶43

¶44

WPC 7375/2011

¶45

these circumstances appropriate directions may be issued to the police. Though the police have registered a crime against respondents 3 to 5 they are not conducting proper investigation. This emboldens the miscreants to take law into their hands and attack the petitioner. Appropriate directions may be issued it is prayed.

¶46

Respondents 3 to 5 have entered appearance through a counsel. Counter affidavit has been filed. It is submitted that in the presence of the RDO an agreement regarding a pathway to be left on the eastern side of the property by the petitioner and respondents 3 to 5 was reached. That pathway is between their properties and the school compound on the east. Though the petitioner initially agreed to the proposal before the RDO, the petitioner is retracting from the said agreement and is refusing to sign the written agreement. In this context there are certain disputes. Respondents 3 to 5 have no intention to trespass into the property of the petitioner or to cause any harm to the life or person of the petitioner. In these circumstances no directions under Art.226 are necessary at all submits the learned counsel for respondents 3 to 5.

¶47

The learned Govt. Pleader after taking instructions from

¶48

¶49

WPC 7375/2011

¶50

respondents 1 and 2 submits that in the perception of the police officials there is no threat to the life or person of the petitioner. If there be any such threat from respondents 3 to 5 or any other appropriate action shall be taken. The police do not want to take sides in the civil dispute regarding pathway. Parties may be directed to go to the civil court and get appropriate orders. There need be no semblance of an apprehension that the life and person of the petitioner would be put in peril by respondents 3 to 5 or any one. The police shall take necessary action undertakes the learned Govt. Pleader.

¶51

We have considered all the relevant inputs. We do not think it necessary to come to any conclusion about the validity of the alleged agreement regarding the widening of the pathway. If the petitioner has an apprehension that on the assertions of a non-existent agreement people are attempting to trespass into his property it is up to him to go to the civil court and seek appropriate orders to secure his rights over the property. We are certainly of the opinion that no directions under Art.226 of the Constitution need be issued in favour of the petitioner in respect of the property. So far as the alleged threat to the life and person of the petitioner is concerned we accept the

¶52

WPC 7375/2011

¶53

¶54

submission/undertaking made by respondents 3 to 5 through their counsel. We take note of and record the submission of the learned Govt. Pleader on behalf of respondents 1 and 2 that adequate protection shall be given to the life and person of the petitioner if there be any threat from respondents 3 to 5 or any others.

¶55

We are satisfied in these circumstances that no specific directions need be issued. This writ petition is in these circumstances dismissed with the above observations.

¶56

R.BASANT Judge

¶57

K. SURENDRA MOHAN Judge

¶58

¶59

WPC 7375/2011 5

K.Many v. the District Superintendent of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Many v. the District Superintendent of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

V.M.Mujeeb Rahman Vs the D.Y.S.P.Tirur and Others

K.Karunakaran Vs the Superintendent of Police and Others

Benny Jabakumar Jose Vs the Deputy Superintendent of Police

Joseph.D.Fernandez Vs State of Kerala

Shanavas and Another Vs State of Kerala

P.J.Thomas Vs Sub Inspector of Police