IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM WEDNESDAY, THE 28TH SEPTEMBER 2011 / 6TH ASWINA 1933 WP(C).No. 24890 of 2011(I) ------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------- EDAYADI @ NARAYANA PILLAI, S/O. RAGHAVA KURUP, AGED 53 YEARS, SANTHINIKETHAN, THEKKEKARA VILLAGE, VATHIKULAM MURI, MAVELIKKARA TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.R.PADMAKUMAR SRI.R.T.PRADEEP SRI.SREEKANTH S.NAIR RESPONDENT(S): ------------------- 1. DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, CHENGANNOOR - 689 121. 2. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHENGANNOOR- 689 121. 3. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VENMONY - 689 509. 4. BIJU, AGED KUNJACHAN, AGED 38 YEARS, THENGIZHETHU THAZHE PUTHUVAL VEEDU, WARD NO.12, VENMONY - 689 509. ADV. SRI. K.SHAJ FOR R4 SRI.SAJJU.S FOR R4 GOVT. PLEADER SMT.C.M.CHARISMA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/09/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 24890 of 2011(I) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXTS EXT.P1:- TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 28/07/11 WITH RESPECT TO THE PROPERTY COVERED BY SALE DEED NO.496/11. EXT.P2:- TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 25/08/11 WITH RESPECT TO THE PROPERTY COVERED BY SALE DEED NO.535/11. EXT.P3:- TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 01/09/11 SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P4:- TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 01/09/11 GIVEN BY 2ND RESPONDENT IN TOKEN OF RECEIPT EXT.P3. EXT.P5:- TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 01/11/11 GIVEN BY 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P6:- TRUE COPY OF THE ROUGH SKETCH OF LOCATION OF PROPERTY OF PETITIONER AND THAT OF 4TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P7:- TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 09/09/11 SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & C. K. ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ------------------------------------------------ W. P. C. No.24890 of 2011 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 28th day of September, 2011 JUDGMENT Abdul Rehim, J The petitioner is the Secretary of a registered society, namely “Pravasi Malayali Development Society”. The petitioner had purchased immovable properties having extent of 56.37 Ares and 20.19 Ares, situated in Venmony village, by virtue of two sale deeds. Exts.P1 and P2 are the receipts evidencing payment of land tax with respect to the said property. The petitioner had developed the properties by providing internal roads and dividing the same into plots of 10 cents each. The petitioner is intending to construct residential buildings in the property for intending purchasers, who are mainly Non-resident Indians. The 4th respondent is the owner of a property situated on the northern side of the petitioner's property, wherein he is residing. It is stated that the property of the petitioner and W. P. C. No.24890 of 2011 -2- the 4th respondent is lying clearly demarcated by compound wall on the Northern boundary of the petitioner's property. Grievance of the petitioner is that the 4th respondent is now creating trouble and obstruction to the construction activities in the petitioner's property with an oblique motive of coercing the petitioner to purchase the property of the 4th respondent, for an exorbitant value, which the petitioner has not yielded. Now the 4th respondent is obstructing the pathway leading to the petitioner's property by putting his Tipper Lorry, Maruti Swift Car and other vehicles owned by the 4th respondent blocking the entrance. Inspite of submitting Ext.P3 complaint to the 3rd respondent and Ext.P7 complaint to the 2nd respondent, no effective steps are taken to remove such obstructions. Hence this Writ Petition is filed. 2. Sri.K.Shaj, learned counsel appearing for the 4th respondent submitted that there exists a dispute between the petitioner and the 4th respondent with respect to boundary of the properties. It is also contended that the petitioner had cheated the intending buyers by purchasing W. P. C. No.24890 of 2011 -3- the entire property in his own name, after collecting amounts from the Non-resident Indians. According to the 4th respondent this Writ Petition is filed only with an intention to resist the actions which will be taken by the buyers from whom the petitioner had collected money. 3. Smt.C.M.Charisma, learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the police officials submitted on the basis of the instructions that, the enquiry conducted on the basis of the complaints revealed that, the 4th respondent had blocked passage to the property of the petitioner by putting Tipper Lorry on the pathway. It is stated that the police had intervened and removed such obstruction and warned the 4th respondent not to create any such obstruction in future. 4. From the facts and circumstances narrated above, we are of the opinion that, if there exists any dispute with respect to the property owned by the petitioner and the 4th respondent, remedy need be worked out by approaching the competent civil court. The 4th respondent has no manner of right to take law into his own hands and to create any W. P. C. No.24890 of 2011 -4- physical obstructions to the petitioner in having ingress and egress to his property. 5. Therefore, we dispose the Writ Petition directing the 3rd respondent to take effective steps to remove physical obstruction if any caused to the ingress and egress of the petitioner and his men and workers to the property owned by him. If any intimation is received regarding any such obstruction then effective steps shall be taken for removal of such obstruction and to ensure that the petitioner is having free ingress and egress to his properties and enjoyment of the property in every manner. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE C. K. ABDUL REHIM JUDGE kns/- W. P. C. No.24890 of 2011 -5-