IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM FRIDAY, THE 2ND SEPTEMBER 2011 / 11TH BHADRA 1933 WP(C).No. 22693 of 2011(J) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- DILEEPKUMAR, AGED 47 YEARS, S/O. S.K. NARAYANAN, 'ASWINAM', CHAVARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.PHILIP MATHEW RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KOLLAM - 691 001. 2. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHAVARA, KOLLAM - 691001. 3. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHAVARA, KOLLAM - 691 001. 4. CHAVARA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, CHAVARA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, CHAVARA -691 583. 5. SECRETARY, CHAVARA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, CHAVARA -691 583, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 6. SUNILKUMAR, BLAHATH, CHAVARA.P.O, CHAVARA - 691 583. 7. SINILKUMAR, SREEDEEPAM (KULANGARA), KOTTAIKKAKAM, CHAVARA - 691 583, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 8. CHANDRASEKHARAPILLAI, PRASANTHI (IDATHARA), CHAVARA - 691 583, KOLLAM DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.LUIZ GODWIN D'COUTH FOR R7 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/09/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 2 WP(C).No. 22693 of 2011(J) APPENDIX EXHIBITS FOR THE PETITIONER : Ext.P1 : COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 7.7.2010 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE OMBUDSMAN Ext.P2 : COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 15.3.2011 IN O.S.NO.285/2010 Ext.P3 : COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE, KOLLAM Ext.P4 : COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 9.3.2011 IN Crl.M.P.No.632/2011 IN CRIMINAL REVISION NO.19/2011 Ext.P5 : COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 9.8.2011 FILED BY PETITIONER TO THIRD RESPONDENT. Ext.P6 : COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 10.8.2011 ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT EXHIBITS FOR THE RESPONDENTS : NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A.TO JUDGE ami/ PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.22693 of 2011 ------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of September, 2011. J U D G M E N T C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. The petitioner is seeking direction against respondents 1 to 3 to grant adequate and effective police protection to the life of the petitioner, his family members and also to his property, from the threats and obstructions alleged to have been caused by respondents 5 to 8. The petitioner inter alia seeks protection for himself and his workers to reconstruct the compound wall in the property of the petitioner comprised in Re-survey No.405/9- 1 of Chavara village. Respondents 4 and 5 are the grama panchayat and its Secretary respectively. 2. It is stated that property of the petitioner situates on the northern side of Kottamkulangara-Padappanal road. It is further stated that the road is situated in the same level of the petitioner's property and drainage channels were provided along the side of the road. But, according to the petitioner, those channels are inadequate for free flow of water and there 2 W.P.(C) No.22693 of 2011 is accumulation of waste water during rainy season. It is stated that, respondents 4 to 8 attempted to construct a drainage through the petitioner's property, which was resisted by the petitioner. In this regard, on the basis of a complaint submitted by the petitioner before the Ombudsman for Local Self Government Institutions, Ext.P1 order was issued directing the President of the grama panchayat to make attempts for amicable settlement and if not, the parties are directed to approach the civil court. It is further stated that the petitioner had already filed a civil suit and obtained Ext.P2 judgment, whereby the defendants therein were restrained from trespassing into the petitioner's property and from constructing any permanent structure for drainage of waste water within the said property. It is revealed that respondents 6 and 7 are not parties to Ext.P2 suit. It is further revealed that the 8th respondent had filed a complaint before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Kollam, and a conditional order was issued against the petitioner, as per Ext.P3, directing the petitioner to remove the obstructions caused to the pubic water channel. According to the petitioner, he has challenged Ext.P3 order in a Criminal Revision Petition 3 W.P.(C) No.22693 of 2011 filed before the Sessions court, Kollam and Ext.P4 order was obtained. 3. It is alleged by the petitioner that on 22.7.2011, respondents 6 to 8 along with others have trespassed into the petitioner's property and demolished the compound wall. It is further alleged that respondents 6 to 8 are now threatening the petitioner and obstructing from reconstructing the compound wall. Under the above mentioned circumstances, the petitioner had submitted Ext.P5 complaint before the 3rd respondent. Since no action was taken on the basis of such complaint, this writ petition is filed. 4. In the counter affidavit filed by the 7th respondent it is contended that, the petitioner's residential compound was originally a paddy field and there existed a drainage channel flowing through the property. Since the petitioner converted the paddy land, the flow of water was blocked and obstruction is being caused due to accumulation of waste water, causing nuisance to the general public. It is further stated that Ext.P3 order was issued by the Sub Divisional Magistrate in exercise of power vested under Section 133 of Cr.P.C. But the petitioner 4 W.P.(C) No.22693 of 2011 had not obeyed the directions. It is also contended that against Ext.P2 judgment, the grama panchayat had filed appeal and the same is pending disposal. The allegation regarding trespass and demolishen of the compound wall is stoutly denied. According to the 7th respondent, there is no compound wall in the petitioner's property and the allegation regarding obstruction caused to the reconstruction of the compound wall is totally false. 5. In a reply affidavit filed by the petitioner it is stated that, the PWD had constructed a culvert in the said area but it is not constructed in a proper manner and therefore during rainy season, the rain water is not drained properly. The allegation that there was a channel through the petitioner's property is denied. It is further stated that the petitioner had already approached the panchayat seeking steps to clear the obstruction in the drainage, which is flowing through the eastern side of the ancestral property. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances and also the rival contentions raised, we are of the opinion that various factual aspects like existence of the public water channel through the property as well as existence of the compound wall 5 W.P.(C) No.22693 of 2011 etc. are in dispute. Whether the petitioner is entitled to construct the compound wall or as to whether such construction will obstruct the natural flow of rain water etc. are matters which need be decided by the competent civil court, based on evidence to be adduced. We are afraid that we may not be in a position to decide such a disputed issues in exercise of the jurisdiction vested under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Hence we are not inclined to issue any direction to afford protection for construction of the compound wall by the petitioner. However, the parties are at liberty to seek appropriate relief from the civil court as well as from other competent authorities with respect to the disputed issues. 7. Regarding the alleged threat to the life of the petitioner and his family members, it is submitted on behalf of the party respondents that they have no intention to cause any threat. We record the said submission. The writ petition is therefore disposed of directing the 2nd and 3rd respondent to ensure that no incident of any threat or intimidation is caused to the life of the petitioner or his family members, from the side of the party respondents or anybody claiming under them. If any such 6 W.P.(C) No.22693 of 2011 instance of threat or intimidation is reported, necessary steps shall be taken to avert the same. The writ petition is disposed of with the above directions and observations. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE ami/