IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN THURSDAY, THE 10TH MARCH 2011 / 19TH PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 7448 of 2011(E) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ SURESH.V.,S/O.VASUDEVAN PILLAI, KOICKALAMPARAMBIL, EDASSERIMALA, ARANMULA P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA-689 533. BY ADVS. SRI.P.B.SAHASRANAMAN, SRI.T.S.HARIKUMAR, SRI.K.JAGADEESH. RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KOZHENCHERY,PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN-689 641. 2. SOMAN PILLAI, MUZHUVANCHERIL, EDASSERIMALA, ARANMULA P.O.,PATHANAMTHITTA-689 533. 3. GOPALAN,THOTTATHUMONMODIYIL, EDASSERIMALA,ARANMULA P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA-689 533. 4. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOME AFFAIRS, SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. R1 & R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. T.K.VIPINDAS THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss R. BASANT & K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 7448 of 2011-E ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of March, 2011 JUDGMENT Basant,J. The petitioner has come to this Court with this petition for issue of directions under Art.226 of the Constitution to the 1st respondent to enable the petitioner to construct a compound wall in accordance with Ext.P1 permit secured by him from the local Grama Panchayat. According to the petitioner, there is a pathway on the South of his property. That pathway leads to the houses of various persons. Respondents 2 and 3 are persons owning properties far East of the petitioner's property. According to the petitioner, he is entitled to construct the compound wall in terms of Ext.P1. According to him, the actual width of the Panchayat pathway on the South is only 90 cms. The Panchayat has asked him to leave 180 cms. But even after W.P.(C) No. 7448 of 2011 -: 2 :- leaving 180 cms. when the petitioner is attempting to construct the compound wall, respondents 1 to 3 are obstructing the construction. In fact, the petitioner has a further grievance that they are demolishing a kayyala which is already in existence. It is, in these circumstances, prayed that appropriate directions under Art.226 of the Constitution may be issued. 2. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner. The precise dispute is about the width of the pathway on the South of the property of the petitioner. Respondents 2 and 3 are obviously not the persons who alone are using the said pathway. In fact, the submission of the petitioner is that it is a Panchayat pathway. If there be any illegal obstruction to the construction of the pathway, contrary to the terms of Ext.P1, it is certainly incumbent on the petitioner to approach the civil court and seek appropriate directions. Of the many persons who are admittedly using the pathway, an order of police protection cannot be granted only against respondents 2 and 3 to enable the petitioner to construct the compound wall in terms of Ext.P1. We are of the opinion that it will be abuse of the jurisdiction of this Court under Art.226 of the Constitution to enable the petitioner to walk away with an order of police protection with only respondents 2 and 3 on the party array. At W.P.(C) No. 7448 of 2011 -: 3 :- any rate, we are not persuaded to invoke the jurisdiction under Art.226 of the Constitution. 3. This wit petition is, in these circumstances, dismissed. We may hasten to observe that we have not intended to express any opinion on the question of the actual width of the pathway on the South of the property of the petitioner or even the right of the petitioner to construct the compound wall in terms of Ext.P1. Sd/- R. BASANT (Judge) Sd/- K. SURENDRA MOHAN (Judge) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge W.P.(C) No. 7448 of 2011 -: 4 :-