IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN MONDAY, THE 30TH MAY 2011 / 9TH JYAISHTA 1933 WP(C).No. 14023 of 2011(C) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- SAFIYA, W/O.ABDUL RAHMAN, ELAVUNKUDY HOUSE, PONJASSERY, PERUMBAVOOR VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.V.B.UNNIRAJ, SMT.SHYLA SHAFFEQ. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHERANELLOOR POLICE STATION, CHERANELLOOR – 682 034. 2. NOUSHAD, THOTTATHILPARAMBIL HOUSE, CHERANELLOOR.P.O., CHERANELLOOR VILLAGE – 682 034. R1 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. T.K. VIPINDAS. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/05/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.14023/2011-C: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DTD. 03/01/2011 IN RESPECT OF THE AFORESAID PROPERTY. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, CHERANELLOOR. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 18/04/2011. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE REPORT VILLAGE OFFICER, CHERANELLUR. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. Prv. R.BASANT & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. *********************** W.P(C) No.14023 of 2011-C ***************************** Dated this the 30th day of May, 2011 JUDGMENT BASANT, J. Petitioner, a young woman, has come to this Court seeking issue of directions to the 1st respondent to afford protection to the petitioner to develop land for the construction of a residential building. The 2nd respondent is allegedly raising objections. It is, in these circumstances, that the present prayer is made. 2. The 2nd respondent, though served, has not chosen to enter appearance. The learned Government Pleader after taking instructions from the 1st respondent submits that the bone of contentions is not the applicability of the Kerala Cultivation of Paddy Land And Wet Land Act and Rules, though initially there was an objection on the ground that the development is proscribed under the said Act. The learned Government Pleader submits that at present, the dispute is about the width of a public drain. The objection is raised by the local people that the petitioner is attempting to reduce the width of a public drain while developing her property. W.P(C) No.14023 of 2011-C 2 3. The 2nd respondent has not, of course, entered appearance. But in the total absence of any materials, we are not persuaded to permit the petitioner to arm herself with any direction for police protection. If there be any objection from anyone against the development of land and construction of building, the petitioner must seek appropriate directions from the civil court having jurisdiction. Without and before considering the tenability of the objection regarding the grievance of reducing the public drain, we are not persuaded to issue any specific directions for police protection. 4. This Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. We may hasten to observe that it shall be open to the petitioner to approach the civil court if there be any illegal obstruction from anyone against development of land or construction of a residential building in accordance with law by the petitioner. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE) rtr/