Petitioners seeking police protection for construction and mandamus against obstruction doubted rejection reliance on interim injunction, directing them to proceed with building but not wall, and approach SHO if obstructed, disposing writ.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 30TH POUSHA, 1942
WP(C).No.25259 OF 2020(F)
PETITIONERS:
1 ANILKUMAR J. AGED 52 YEARS S/O. JANARDHANAN PILLAI, ANIL SADANAM, PERINGANADU VILLAGE, AMMAKANTAKARA, ADOOR TALUK, ADOOR P.O. PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT 691 523.
2 SREELATHA, AGED 49 YEARS W/O. ANILKUMAR, ANIL SADANAM, PERINGANADU VILLAGE, AMMAKANTAKARA, ADOOR TALUK, ADOOR P.O. PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT 691 523.
BY ADV. SRI.K.K.SETHUKUMAR
RESPONDENTS:
1 DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF, PATHANAMTHITTA, PATHANAMTHITTA P.O. PATHANAMTHITTA DISTIRCT 689 645.
3 AKHIL RAJ.R., AGED 22 YEARS S/O. RAJASEKHARAN PILLAI, CHARUVILAPUTHEN VEEDU, PERINGANADU VILLAGE, AMMAKANTAKARA, ADOOR TALUK, ADOOR P.O. PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT 691 523.
-2-
WP(C).No.25259 OF 2020(F)
4 MANUMOL, AGED 45 YEARS W/O. RAJASEKHARAN PILLAI, CHARUVILAPUTHEN VEEDU, PERINGANADU VILLAGE, AMMAKANTAKARA, ADOOR TALUK, ADOOR P.O. PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT 691 523. R3-4 BY ADV. SRI.VISHAK.K.JOHNSON R3-4 BY ADV. SRI.S.NITHIN (ANCHAL) R3-4 BY ADV. SRI.BIJU C.VARUGHESE R3-4 BY ADV. SMT.BINDU N.RAJAN R1 & 2 BY SMT K.AMMINIKUTTY-SR GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-3-
WP(C).No.25259 OF 2020(F)
JUDGMENT
The petitioners, who are the owners in possession and
enjoyment of 4.45 Ares of land in Block No.11, ReSy.No.158/18-2 and 158/29 of Peringanadu Village, Adoor Taluk covered by Ext.P1 Sale Deed No.1573 dated 30.04.2010, Ext.P2 Tax receipt dated 06.05.2020 and Ext.P3 possession certificate dated 06.10.2020, have filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the 2nd respondent Station House Officer, Adoor Police Station to afford adequate and sufficient police protection to their life and properties and also to the lawful construction of residential building. The petitioners have also sought for a writ of mandamus commanding respondents 1 and 2 to take effective measures on Exts.P9 and P10 complaints dated 29.09.2020 and 03.11.2020 respectively, submitted before the 2nd respondent. The grievance of the petitioners is that respondents 3 and 4 are causing obstruction to the construction of residential building with compound wall undertaken by the petitioners on
-4-
WP(C).No.25259 OF 2020(F)
the strength of Ext.P6 site approval and Ext.P7 development permit.
-5-
WP(C).No.25259 OF 2020(F)
enacted thereunder, strive in accordance with the law, to ensure that all persons enjoy the freedoms and rights available under the law by ensuring peace and order, integrity of the nation, security of the State and protection of human rights. Section 4 of the Act deals with functions of Police. As per Section 4, the Police Officers shall, subject to the provisions of the Act, perform the functions enumerated in clauses (a) to (s) of Section 4. As per clause (a), the Police Officers shall enforce the law impartially; and as per clause (b), the Police Officers shall protect the life, liberty, property, human rights and dignity of all persons in accordance with the law.
"In safeguarding our freedoms, the police play vital role. Society for its defence needs a well-led, welltrained and well-disciplined force or police whom it can trust, and enough of them to be able to prevent crime before it happens, or if it does happen, to detect it and bring the accused to justice.
-6-
WP(C).No.25259 OF 2020(F)
The police, of course, must act properly. They must obey the rules of right conduct. They must not extort confessions by threats or promises. They must not search a man's house without authority. They must not use more force than the occasion warrants."
[(2014) 2 SCC 532] the Apex Court held that, one of the responsibilities of the police is protection of life, liberty and property of citizens. The investigation of offences is one of the important duties the police has to perform. The aim of investigation is ultimately to search for truth and bring the offender to the book. The Apex Court reiterated the said principle in Ankush Maruti Shinde v. State of Maharashtra [(2019) 15 SCC 470] .
-7-
WP(C).No.25259 OF 2020(F)
injunction against the petitioners. The learned counsel would also submit that respondents 3 and 4 have absolutely no objection in the petitioners undertaking the construction of the residential building on the strength of Ext.P6 building permit and that, their objection is only with respect to the construction of compound wall, since there is a boundary dispute.
Having considered the submissions made by the learned
counsel on both sides, this Court finds that since the 3rd respondent has already obtained an order of injunction against the petitioners in O.S.No.254 of 2020, pending before the Munsiff's Court, Adoor, the petitioners cannot undertake the construction of boundary wall on the boundary of their property. Insofar as the construction of the residential building is concerned, the petitioners can proceed with the
-8-
WP(C).No.25259 OF 2020(F)
construction strictly in terms of Ext.P6 building permit and Ext.P7 development permit issued by Pallickal Grama Panchayat, without violating in any manner the order of injunction granted by the Munsiff's Court, Adoor in O.S.No.254 of 2020. In case of any obstruction to that construction, at the instance of respondents 3 and 4, affecting law and order, it is for the petitioners to approach the 2nd respondent Station House Officer with a representation seeking police protection to their life and property, in which event, the 2nd respondent shall consider the same and take appropriate action, taking note of the statutory provisions referred to supra and also the law laid down in the decisions referred to supra.
The writ petition is disposed of as above. No order as to costs.
Sd/-
ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JUDGE
AV/21/1
-9-
WP(C).No.25259 OF 2020(F)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
| EXHIBIT P1 | TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE SALE DEED NO. 1573 /2010 DATED 30/04/2010. |
|---|---|
| EXHIBIT P2 | TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT NO. KL03 011501936/2020 DATED 06/05/2020. |
| EXHIBIT P3 | TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF AND POSSESSION CERTIFICATE NO. 50769776 DATED 06/10/2020. |
| EXHIBIT P4 | TRUE PHOTO COPY OF THE ORDER NO. 3343/214/12 DATED 07/07/2014 ISSUED BY THE SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE, ADOOR. |
| EXHIBIT P5 | TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER NO. 8129/19/82 DATED 31/10/2019 ISSUED BY THE SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE, ADOOR. |
| EXHIBIT P6 | TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE BUILDING PERMITS NO. A3-2450/2020 DATED 01/07/2020 WITH APPROVED PLANS ISSUED BY THE PALLICKAL GRAMA PANCHAYATH. |
| EXHIBIT P7 | TRUE PHOTO COPY OF THE DEVELOPMENT PERMITS NO.A3-2450/2020 DATED 01/07/2020 WITH APPROVED PLAN ISSUED BY THE PALLICKAL GRAMA PANCHAYATH. |
| EXHIBIT P8 | ORIGINAL PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE OLD BUILDING AND THE DEBRIS OF THE DEMOLISHED BUILDING. |
| EXHIBIT P9 | TRUE PHOTO COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 29/09/2020 GIVEN TO 2ND RESPONDENT. |
| EXHIBIT P10 | TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 03/11/2020 GIVEN TO 2ND RESPONDENT. |
-10-
WP(C).No.25259 OF 2020(F)
EXHIBIT P11 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE RECEIPT NO. 1193 /DP/ADR/2020 DATED 29/09/2020 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT AGAINST THE RECEIPT OF EXBT.P9. EXHIBIT P12 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE RECEIPT NO.1740/DP/ADR/2020 DATED 03/11/2020 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT AGAINST THE RECEIPT OF EXBT. P10.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether petitioners can legally undertake construction of a boundary wall given an existing civil injunction.
Whether police protection should be granted proactively or upon specific representation regarding obstruction.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Manohar Lal Sharma v. Principal SecretaryReferred¶37
Manohar Lal Sharma v. Principal Secretary [(2014) 2 SCC 532] · Who else cites this
Ankush Maruti Shinde v. State of MaharashtraReferred¶38
Ankush Maruti Shinde v. State of Maharashtra [(2019) 15 SCC 470] · Who else cites this
Anilkumar J.
Sreelatha
District Police Chief, Pathanamthitta
Station House Officer, Adoor Police Station
Akhil Raj.R.
Manumol
Anil K.Narendran
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
