Dismissed

P.J.Thomas v. Sub Inspector of Police

Kerala HC23 Mar 2011WP(C)/8166/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought writ protection to construct a boundary wall obstructed by respondents. The Court dismissed the petition, noting the underlying boundary dispute required resolution in a civil court before police protection could be directed. No specific directions were issued under Article 226.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed; no specific directions for boundary construction or police protection were issued.

P.J.Thomas Vs Sub Inspector of Police — Landlord and Tenant | Kerala HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD MARCH 2011 / 2ND CHAITHRA 1933 WP(C).No. 8166 of 2011(U)

¶4

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

¶5

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

¶6

1. P.J.THOMAS,PARAPPATHU VEETTIL,AGED 74 YEARS, PENNUKKARA NORTH MURI,ALA VILLAGE,CHANGANNUR ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.

¶7

2. SARAMMA,W/O.P.J.THOMAS,AGED 68 YEARS, -DO- -DO-

¶8

BY ADVS. SRI.T.K.BIJU (MANJINIKARA), SMT.ANNIE M.ABRAHAM.

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

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

¶11

1. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,CHENGANNUR POLICE STATION, CHENGANNUR - PIN-689121.

¶12

2. DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,CHENGANNUR-689 121.

¶13

3. BALAMANI,NISHA BHAVAN,POOMALA BHAGOM, PENNUKKARA VAKKUM MURIYIL,ALA VILLAGE, CHENGANNUR-689 126.

¶14

4. SASI,DRIVER,SHYAM BHAVAN,POOMALA BHAGOM, PENNUKKARA VAKKUM MURIYIL,ALA VILLAGE, CHENGANNUR-689 126.

¶15

5. SUSAMMA JOY,THONDUTHARA VEETTIL,POOMALA BHAGOM,PENNUKKARA VAKKUM MURIYIL,ALA VILLAGE, CHENGANNUR-689 126.

¶16

R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. JAIBY PAUL R3 TO R5 BY ADV. SRI.IYPE JOSEPH

¶17

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

¶18

Kss

¶19

WPC.NO.8166/2011 U

¶20

APPENDIX

¶21

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶22

P1: COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT OF THE PETITIONER'S PROPERTY DTD. 29/04/2010.

¶23

P2: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 24/03/1999 IN O.S.NO.236/1996 OF MUNSIFF COURT, CHENGANNUR.

¶24

P3: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DTD. 8/03/2011.

¶25

P4: COPY OF THE RECEIPT EVIDENCING RECEIPT OF EXT.P3 BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DTD. 8/03/2011.

¶26

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L

/TRUE COPY/

P.A.TO JUDGE

Kss

R.BASANT & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ.

¶31

WPC No.8166 of 2011

¶32

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

¶33

JUDGMENT

¶34

Basant, J.

¶35

The petitioners - spouses have come to this Court with the grievance that their attempt to put up a boundary on the eastern side of their property is being illegally obstructed by respondents 3, 4 and 5. According to the petitioners, they had secured a judgment, Ext.P2 dated 24.3.1999. A barbed wire fencing was available earlier at the time of Ext.P2. Now the petitioners want to construct a compound wall in the place of the said fencing. That has been obstructed to by respondents 3, 4 and 5, it is complained.

¶36

A reading of Ext.P2 very clearly shows that there was a dispute between the parties about the precise boundary even at the time when Ext.P2 was passed. A long period of time has elapsed from the date of Ext.P2. We are not persuaded to agree that we can direct the Police to afford protection to the petitioner to put up

¶37

WPC No.8166/2011 2

¶38

boundary as the precise boundary is not seen ascertained from the materials available. There, evidently, is a dispute between the parties about the width of the pathway on the western side of the property and the precise line along which the boundary compound wall can be constructed.

¶39

The learned Government Pleader submits that the parties were called to the Police Station and at the moment, there is no dispute or disagreement between the parties. In these circumstances, according to the perception of the police officials, no further directions are necessary in this writ petition.

¶40

We make it clear that we do not want to specify the line along which the petitioner can construct his compound wall on the west now. We are unable to ascertain the validity of the objections, if any, of respondents 3, 4 and 5 who, though served have not chosen to appear before Court. We are, in these circumstances, of the opinion that no specific directions under Article 226 of the Constitution need be issued by us now. If there be any serious dispute about the line along which the boundary is to be constructed, needless to say,

¶41

WPC No.8166/2011 3

¶42

the petitioner must approach the civil court and get specific orders regarding the putting up of boundary.

¶43

With the above observations, this writ petition is

¶44

dismissed.

¶45

R.BASANT JUDGE

¶46

K.SURENDRA MOHAN JUDGE

¶47

css/

P.J.Thomas v. Sub Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.J.Thomas v. Sub Inspector 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

K.Many Vs the District Superintendent of Police

Shanavas and Another Vs State of Kerala