Dismissed

Mathew Joseph v. the Commissioner of Police

Kerala HC9 Mar 2021WP(C)/338/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner filed writ petition seeking protection to construct a compound wall against obstruction by Respondent 4. Petitioner later moved to withdraw petition with liberty to file again. Court dismissed petition as withdrawn while reserving right to file fresh petition.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner permitted to withdraw writ petition with liberty to file fresh petition for same relief in future.

Mathew Joseph Vs the Commissioner of Police — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 09TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 18TH PHALGUNA, 1942

¶5

W.P(C).No.338 OF 2021(N)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

MATHEW JOSEPH AGED 66 YEARS S/O. THOMAS, KATTIPARAMBIL HOUSE, KANNAMALI, KANNAMALI P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT – 682 008.

¶8

BY ADV. SHRI.U.BALAGANGADHARAN

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE ABDUL KALAM MARG, MARINE DRIVE, ERNAKULAM, PIN – 682 011.

¶11

2 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, OLD RAILWAY STATION ROAD, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682 018.

¶12

3 THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ERNAKULAM TOWN NORTH POLICE STATION, CHITTOOR RD, OPP. SIB BANK, KACHERIPADY, ERNAKULAM – 682 018.

¶13

4 T.P.NANDAKUMAR, AGED 59 YEARS S/O. K.DAMODARAN NAIR, THURUTHIL HOUSE, HOUSE NO.146F, WARD NO.10, THRIPUNITHURA MUNICIPALITY, THRIPUNITHURA P. O., ERNAKULAM - 682301.

¶14

R1 – R3, SRI. SUNILNATH N.B, GP

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

W.P(C).No.338 OF 2021

¶17

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

The petitioner who is the owner in possession of 04.06 Ares of property comprised in Survey No.227/2/23 of Elamkulam Village covered by Ext.P1 Sale Deed bearing No.2129 of 2020 dated 28.09.2020 of the Sub Registrar Office, Ernakulam, has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of mandamus commanding respondents 2 and 3 to render adequate and sufficient protection to the life and property of the petitioner by removing the illegal threat and obstruction being caused by the 4^th respondent and his men, so as to enable the petitioner to construct compound wall separating the property purchased by him as per Ext.P1 sale deed from the rest of the property covered by Exts.P3 and P4 sale deed Nos.4073 of 2016 and 219 of 2018, both of the Sub Registrar Office, Ernakulam.

¶20

On 06.01.2021, when this writ petition came up for

¶21

admission the learned counsel for the petitioner sought time to get instructions as to whether the construction of the compound wall is after obtaining building permit.

¶22

On 28.01.2021, this Court allowed I.A No.1 of 2021 filed by the petitioner seeking an order to accept Ext.P6 building permit

¶23

W.P(C).No.338 OF 2021

¶24

¶25

dated 21.01.2021, as additional document. This Court issued notice on admission by special messenger to the 4^th respondent, returnable by 04.02.2021. The learned Government Pleader took notice on admission for respondents 1 to 3. Since Ext.P6 building permit issued by Kochi Municipal Corporation is one dated 21.01.2021, i.e., one obtained after the filing of this writ petition, this Court made it clear that the question as to maintainability of the relief sought for in this writ petition, which is one filed on 05.01.2021, will be decided with notice to the respondents.

¶26

Today when this writ petition is taken up for consideration the learned counsel for the petitioner has filed a memo dated 07.03.2021, which reads thus:-

¶27

“The above writ petition has been filed seeking direction to respondents 2 and 3 to render adequate and sufficient protection to the life and property of the petitioner by removing the illegal threat and obstruction being caused by the 4^th respondent herein and his henchmen, so as to enable the petitioner to construct compound wall separating the property purchased by him as per Ext.P1 Sale Deed No.2129 of 2020 of S.R.O Ernakulam from the rest of the property covered by Exts.P3 and P4 sale deed Nos.4073 of 2016 and 219 of 2018, both of S.R.O, Ernakulam.

¶28

W.P(C).No.338 OF 2021

¶29

¶30

Since Ext.P5 complaint dated 31.12.2020 submitted by the petitioner to the 3^rd respondent does not contain the full details regarding the 4^th respondent and the circumstances under which the complaint was submitted, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to permit the petitioner to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to file writ petition for same relief if so required in future.”

¶31

In such circumstances, recording the above memo filed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn, reserving the aforesaid right of the petitioner.

¶32

ANIL K. NARENDRAN,

¶33

SPR

¶34

W.P(C).No.338 OF 2021

¶35

¶36

APPENDIX

¶37

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶38

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF SALE DEED NO.2129 OF 2020 OF S.R.O. ERNAKULAM.

¶39

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE BASIC TAX RECEIPT DATED 15.10.2020 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICE ELAMKULAM.

¶40

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF SALE DEED NO.4073 OF 2016 OF SRO, ERNAKULAM. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.219 OF 2018 OF S.R.O., ERNAKULAM.

¶41

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 31.12.2020 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT AND THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT RECEIPT DATED 2.1.2021.

¶42

EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE SITE APPROVAL AND BUILDING PERMIT DATED 21.01.2021 WITH APPROVED PLAN FROM THE KOCHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION.

¶43

RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS: NIL.

Mathew Joseph v. the Commissioner of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mathew Joseph v. the Commissioner 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

Jayalakshmi, Vs the Station House Officer

Abdul Kalam Vs State of Kerala

Abdulraheem Vs Smt.Dr.Priya Mohan

Dr. Jaison Vs the District Police Chief and Commissioner of Police

Bushrabeevi Vs State of Kerala

Abdul Gafoor Vs Land Tribunal, (Land Reforms)