Dismissed

Chellamma v. Superintendent of Police

Kerala HC26 May 2011WP(C)/9408/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala dismissed a writ petition for a prohibition order under Article 226. The dispute concerned a right of way between neighboring properties, already adjudicated by a civil court which modified an injunction and directed a status quo. The Court held no writ intervention was necessary as the civil court was seized of the matter. Any alleged threat to person or property was deem

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; no directions under Article 226 issued.

Chellamma Vs 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 & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 26TH MAY 2011 / 5TH JYAISHTA 1933

¶5

WP(C).No. 9408 of 2011(A)

¶6

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

¶7

PETITIONER(S):

¶8

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

¶9

CHELLAMMA, AGED 76 YEARS, W/O.SUKUMARA PILLAI, MAZHUPPAYIL VEETTIL, KANDALLOOR, KAYAMKULAM.

¶10

BY ADVS. SRI.R.SUNIL KUMAR SMT.A.SALINI LAL

¶11

RESPONDENT(S):

¶12

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

¶13

1. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, S.P.OFFICE, ALAPPUZHA-690 101.

¶14

2. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, C.I. OF POLICE, KAYAMKULAM-690 502.

¶15

3. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, POLICE STATION, KANAKAKKUNNU-690 531.

¶16

4. THANKACHAN, ARUN NIVAS VEETTIL, KANDALLOOR (S) MURI, KAYAMKULAM-690 535.

¶17

5. SAKUNTHALA, W/O.THANKACHAN, DO.

¶18

6. VASUDEVAN,

¶19

S/O.ACHUTHAN, KIZHAKKIDATHU SREEJITH BHAVANAM, KANDALLOOR (S) MURI, KAYAMKULAM-690 535.

¶20

7. SREELATHA, D/O.RAJAGOPALAN NAIR, SUMANGALATHU VEETTIL, KANDALLOOR (S) MURI, KAYAMKULAM-690 535.

svs

........2/-...

...2...

WPC.NO.9408/2011

8. HEMALATHA, W/O.SISUPALAN, KIZHAKKIDATHU VEETTIL, KANDALLOOR (S) MURI, KAYAMKULAM-690 535.

¶26

9. KOCHU PILLAI, S/O.KESAVAN, KIZHAKKIDATHU THARAYIL, KANDALLOOR (S) MURI, KAYAMKULAM-690 535.

¶27

10. RAMYA, W/O.ANANDAN, KIZHAKKIDATHU THARAYIL, KANDALLOOR (S) MURI, KAYAMKULAM-690 535.

¶28

R1 TO R3 BY GOVT.PLEADER SMT.C.M.CHARISMA R4 TO 10 BY ADV. SRI.S.MOHANAN

¶29

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/05/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶30

svs

¶31

W.P.(C). NO. 9408/2011

¶32

APPENDIX

¶33

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶34

P1: COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S. NO.31/2011

¶35

P2: COPY OF THE ORDER IN I.A. NO.224/2011 OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, KAYAMKULAM.

¶36

P3: COPY OF THE F.I.R.

¶37

P4: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶38

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:

¶39

R4(a):COPY OF THE PETITION TO THE RDO DATED 18/01/2011. R4(b):COPY OF THE TAHSILDAR'S REPORT.

¶40

R4(c):COPY OF THE COMMISSIONER'S REPORT.

¶41

R4(d):COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT.

/TRUE COPY/

P.A. TO JUDGE.

svs

R.BASANT & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ.

¶46

***************************

¶47

**W.P(C) No.9408 of 2011-A *******************************

¶48

Dated this the 26^th day of May, 2011

¶49

JUDGMENT

¶50

BASANT, J.

¶51

The petitioner is an owner of an item of property. Respondents 4 to 7 are neighbours of the petitioner residing near the said property. Respondents 4 to 7 are asserting a right of way through the property of the petitioner. The petitioner had gone to the civil court claiming a decree of prohibitory injunction. An application for temporary injunction pending disposal of the suit was also filed. It was allowed initially. Later, after securing the report of the Commissioner, the order of injunction was vacated and a direction was issued that the parties shall maintain status quo in respect of the property. The petitioner does not at present reside in that property. According to the petitioner, respondents 4 to 7 are intimidating, threatening and harassing the petitioner. The petitioner is hence unable to reside in that property. It is prayed that directions may be issued under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to respondents 1 to 3 to take appropriate action to protect person and property of the petitioner.

¶52

¶53

W.P(C) No.9408 of 2011-A

¶54

Respondents 4 to 7 have entered appearance. According to them, the only access to their property is through the property of the petitioner. They have a right of way through the property of the petitioner. The petitioner is falsely asserting that there is no right of way. The civil court was satisfied about the existence of the pathway and that is why the order of injunction was vacated and the parties were directed to maintain status quo. In any view of the matter, the alleged conduct of respondents 4 to 7 can only entitle the petitioner to complain before the civil court, before which proceedings are pending. According to respondents 4 to 7, there has been no violation of the order of the civil court. Police may not be permitted to embark on a rowing enquiry as to whether the civil court's direction has been violated. Sans the dispute regarding the property, there is no threat whatsoever to the life or person of the petitioner. In these circumstances, this petition may be dismissed, submits the learned counsel for respondents 4 to 10.

¶55

The learned Government Pleader submits that it is true that there are disputes between the parties. Ext.P3(a) crime was registered. Investigation in that crime is going on. Respondents 4 to 7 are not accused in that crime. A relative of

¶56

¶57

W.P(C) No.9408 of 2011-A

¶58

the 4^th respondent is the accused in that crime. In the perception of the police officials, there is no threat to the life of the petitioner. If there be any such threat, the petitioner shall be at liberty to complain and thereupon the police shall take necessary action in accordance with law, submits the learned Government Pleader.

¶59

We have considered all the relevant inputs. The dispute between the parties is essentially a dispute regarding right of way. One asserts that there is no right of way while the other asserts that the way through the property of the petitioner is the only access for respondents 4 to 7. Civil court is already seized off the matter. The ground realities have been ascertained by the civil court by procuring evidence by deputing a Commissioner. The order of injunction has been modified and there is only a direction to maintain status quo. We are, in these circumstances, satisfied that no direction under Article 226 of the Constitution deserves to be issued in the matter. If the petitioner has grievance about invasion of her rights in that property, the petitioner shall be at liberty to complain to the civil court, before which proceedings are now pending. We accept the submission of the learned Government Pleader that threat

¶60

¶61

W.P(C) No.9408 of 2011-A

¶62

against life and person if any of the petitioner shall be looked into and appropriate action shall be taken by the police. We are not persuaded to agree that any further specific directions are necessary in the matter.

¶63

This Writ Petition is, in these circumstances, dismissed with the above observations.

¶64

(R.BASANT, JUDGE)

¶65

(K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE)

¶66

rtr/

Chellamma v. Superintendent of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chellamma v. Superintendent of Police

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

P.K.Thrivikraman Vs the S.I. of Police

Joseph George @ Jobin Varghese Vs State of Kerala and Others

Ummusalma Vs the State of Kerala

K.N.Ramaswami & Another Vs the State of Kerala & Others

Bijumon Vs Superintendent of Police,Pathanamthitta

Vembanad Cruises (P) Ltd. Vs the Superintendent of Police