Allowed

Mohanan.a v. the District Police Chief

Kerala HC16 Aug 2019WP(C)/11646/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed a writ petition filed by a petitioner seeking police protection against the third respondent who violated Civil Court orders by damaging a water pipeline and severing electric connections in a property dispute.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Police to intervene and take necessary action if the petitioner alerts them regarding any act by the third respondent to physically obstruct water drawing.

Mohanan.a Vs the District Police Chief — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN

¶6

FRIDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF AUGUST 2019 / 25TH SRAVANA, 1941

¶7

WP(C).No.11646 OF 2019(E)

¶8

PETITIONER/S:

¶9

MOHANAN.A

¶10

AGED 69 YEARS S/O.LATE APPUKUTTAN, LAKSHMI KRIPA, NEDIVILIKALAM, OZHUVUPARA, PALLASSANA, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶11

BY ADVS. SRI.K.R.AVINASH (KUNNATH) SRI.ABDUL RAOOF PALLIPATH

¶12

RESPONDENT/S:

¶13

1 THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF PALAKKAD-678001

¶14

2 THE SUB INSPECTOR POLICE, KOLLAMKODE POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD-678506

¶15

3 HARIDASAN S/O.KRISHNAN, NEDUVILIKALAM, OZHIVUPARA, PALLASSANA, CHITTUR, PALAKKAD-678505

¶16

4 SMT.KAMALAM W/O.HARIDASAN, NEDUVILIKALAM, OZHIVUPARA, PALLASSANA, CHITTUR, PALAKKAD-678505

¶17

R3-4 BY ADV. SRI.G.HARIHARAN R3-4 BY ADV. SRI.PRAVEEN.H.

¶18

OTHER PRESENT:

¶19

SR.GP SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16.08.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

W.P.(C) No. 11646 of 2019

-2-

JUDGMENT

V.G.ARUN, J.

The petitioner and respondents 3 and 4 are neighbouring property owners. The petitioner had entered into an agreement with the third respondent for purchase of 3 cents from the property of the third respondent for the purpose of digging a well and for drawing water. According to the petitioner, he paid the entire sale consideration and thereafter dug the well, installed electrical motor and is drawing water to his residence from the well through a pipeline from 2006 onwards. In the year 2016, there arose some disputes between the petitioner and respondents 3 and 4. Thereupon, respondents 3 and 4 threatened to disconnect the pipeline and dismantle the electric connection to the motor. In view of the threat, the petitioner

¶26

W.P.(C) No. 11646 of 2019

¶27

was constrained to file O.S.No.297 of 2016 before the Munsiff's Court, Chittoor seeking a permanent prohibitory injunction, restraining the third respondent from disconnecting the pipeline.

¶28

The application for interim injunction in the suit was dismissed by the Munsiff Court and thereupon, the petitioner filed Civil Miscellaneous Appeal (CMA No.73 of 2018) before the Additional District Court-V, Palakkad, wherein Ext.P4 judgment was passed, setting aside the order passed by the Munsiff's Court in the application for interim injunction and allowing the same and thereby, restraining the third respondent and his men from causing damage to the well, motor shed and pipeline in the plaint schedule property, altering its lie as noticed by the Advocate Commissioner and from committing nuisance or causing

¶29

W.P.(C) No. 11646 of 2019

¶30

-4-

¶31

obstruction to the petitioner in drawing water from the said well to his house through the pipeline till the disposal of the suit. Pending the CMA, the third respondent destroyed a portion of the pipeline, thereby disrupting the drawing of water from the well. Hence, the petitioner filed I.A.No.1824 of 2018 in CMA No.73 of 2018, praying for restoration of the pipe connection and electric supply and for realisation of damages from the third respondent. By Ext.P3 order, the petitioner was permitted to repair and restore the electric connection and the pipeline, at his expense. The appellate court left it open for the lower court to add the expenses incurred for the restoration towards the costs to be awarded to the parties at the final disposal of the suit. The interlocutory application, as far as the prayer for damages is concerned, was sent to the lower court, to be decided along

¶32

W.P.(C) No. 11646 of 2019

¶33

-5-

¶34

with the suit based on evidence.

¶35

The petitioner submits that even after Exts.P3 and P4, there is imminent threat of disruption of water supply and also of physical assault, on the petitioner entering the property for the purpose of operating the electric pump. Though the petitioner approached the Police voicing his grievance, the Police is reluctant to act on the premise that the Police cannot interfere in civil disputes.

¶36

The third respondent has filed a counter affidavit, mainly contending that various litigation are pending between the petitioner and the third respondent before the competent civil courts and therefore, the grant of police protection would prejudice his interest. It is submitted that the third respondent intends to challenge Ext.P4 and necessary steps in that regard is being taken.

¶37

W.P.(C) No. 11646 of 2019

¶38

-6-

¶39

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and

¶40

the third respondent and the learned Senior Government Pleader.

¶41

It is true that normally, this Court would be loath to grant police protection in cases where civil disputes are pending between the parties. But, from a reading of Ext.P4 judgment, it is seen that along with the CMA the petitioner

¶42

had filed I.A.No.1545 of 2018 for a temporary injunction restraining the third respondent from causing any damage to the well, motor shed and pipeline till the disposal of the appeal. After hearing both sides, the appellate court had allowed that I.A., and directed the parties to maintain status quo in relation to the drawing of water from the well in question including the pipeline and the motor shed. In spite of the order of status quo , the third respondent caused

¶43

W.P.(C) No. 11646 of 2019

¶44

-7-

¶45

damage to the pipeline and severed the electric connection. It is in such circumstances that the appellate court passed Ext.P3 order, permitting the petitioner to repair and restore the pipeline and electric connection at his expense. The circumstances being as above, we find the apprehension of the petitioner to be justified. The third respondent cannot violate the orders of the civil court with impunity and at the same time, contend that the Police cannot intervene and correct his illegal actions. The appellate court having permitted the petitioner to restore the pipeline and the electric connection and having further restrained the third respondent from causing any damage to the well, motor shed and pipeline, the third respondent cannot physically prevent the petitioner from operating the motor and drawing water from the well, lest it would amount to an affront to the

¶46

W.P.(C) No. 11646 of 2019

¶47

-8-

¶48

administration of justice.

¶49

In the circumstances, we allow the writ petition,

¶50

directing the Police to intervene and take necessary action, if in the event of the petitioner alerting the Police regarding any act on the part of the third respondent to physically obstruct the petitioner from drawing water from the well. No order as to costs.

¶51

Sd/-

¶52

K.VINOD CHANDRAN JUDGE

¶53

Sd/JUDGE

¶54

Scl/16.08

¶55

W.P.(C) No. 11646 of 2019

¶56

-9-

¶57

APPENDIX

¶58

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶59

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMISSION REPORT IN OS 297/2016 DATED 298.2016

¶60

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN OPC 1046/18 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT DATED 13.4.2018

¶61

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN IA 1824/18 IN CMA 73/2018 OF ADDL.DISTRICT COURTV, PALAKKAD

¶62

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN CMA 73/2018 DATED 19.12.2018 OF THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT-V, PALAKKAD

¶63

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 1.4.2019 FILED BEFORE ETHE 2ND RESPONDENT

¶64

RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶65

EXHIBITR3(a) TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT MADE IN W.P. (C0NO.4713/2017 DATED 13.12.2018.

¶66

EXHIBIT-R3(b) TRUE COPY OF THE DETAILS OF THE VARIOUS WRIT PETITIONS AND OTHER WRIT PETITIONS FILED BY THE PETITIONER AGAINST THE RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2.

¶67

EXHIBIT-R3(c) TRUE COPY OF THE CASE DETAILS OF O.S.NO.267/2016 PENDING BEFORE THE MUNSIFF COURT, CHITTUR. EXHIBIT-R(d) TRUE COPY OF ONE SUCH JUDGMENT MADE IN W.P.(C)NO.18902/2019 DATED 11.07.2019.

¶68

W.P.(C) No. 11646 of 2019

¶69

-10-

Mohanan.a v. the District Police Chief

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohanan.a v. the District Police Chief

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

Mini Antony Vs Circle Inspector of Police

Abhinav Mohan.B.M Vs State of Kerala

The Medical Mission of the South Kerala Vs State of Kerala

Rajesh, Vs Sub Inspector of Police

Rajesh, Vs Sub Inspector of Police

Chunakkara Vadakku Noorul Islam Jama Ath Vs State of Kerala