IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS MONDAY, THE 17TH MAY 2010 / 27TH VAISAKHA 1932 WP(C).No. 7114 of 2010(L) ----------------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- JOHN.E, S/O.IDICHERIYAN, KALAPPALA HOUSE, NEDUNGODU, EDAMULAKKAL VILLAGE, ANCHAL, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.B.KRISHNA MANI RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, PUNALUR, KOLLAM. 2. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ANCHAL, KOLLAM. 3. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ANCHAL, KOLLAM. 4. THE SECRETARY (G.SREEKUMAR), EDAMULACKAL GRAMA PANCHAYAT, EDAMULACKAL, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 5. V.RAVEENDRANATH, VIJAYA MANDIRAM, KAIPPILLYMUKKU, EDAMULACKAL, ANCHAL P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT. R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SHRI T.K. VIPINDAS. ADV. SRI.C.J.JOY FOR R4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX IN W.P.(C).NO.7114 OF 2010 L PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 29.11.2005 IN O.S.246/2004 BEFORE THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, PUNALUR. EXT.P2TRUE COPY OF THE DECREE DATED 29.11.2005 IN O.S.246/2004 BEFORE THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, PUNALUR. EXT.P3TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER HEREIN BEFORE THE THIRD RESPONDENT DATED 27/2/2010. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. // True Copy // PS to Judge K. M. JOSEPH & M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. -------------------------------------------------- W.P(C). NO. 7114 OF 2010 L --------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 17th May, 2010 JUDGMENT K.M. Joseph, J. Petitioner has approached this Court seeking police protection. Briefly put, the case of the petitioner is as follows: Petitioner is the absolute owner in possession of 23 cents of property. The width of the road on the eastern side is about 6 ½ metres and that on the southern side is about 6 metres. Petitioner has already surrendered 3 metres of land for widening the road. It is stated that the Secretary of the fourth respondent Panchayat, at the instigation of the fifth respondent who is a Member of the Panchayat, had tried to widen the roads on the southern and eastern sides of the petitioner's property by trying to demolish the petitioner's boundary walls. 2. A Statement is filed by Advocate Shri C.J. Joy on behalf of the fourth respondent. Therein, it is, inter alia, stated as follows: WPC.7114/2010L : 2 : “2. It is further stated that the Panchayat has no plan to widen the road as falsely alleged by the petitioner. The Panchayat has not initiated any proposal for widening the said road. The claim of the petitioner that he has surrendered a portion of his property for the construction of the road is false and hence denied. 3. Moreover, if the Panchayat has such a proposal, rather than grabbing the property of any persons, the Panchayat can resort to acquisition as per the provisions in Land Acquisition Act. The fear expressed by the petitioner is baseless and there is no situation warranting police protection to the petitioner. Moreover, since the petitioner is armed with Ext.P1 Judgment and Ext.P2 Decree, in the event of any violation, the petitioner can approach a Civil Court alleging violation of injunction, which the petitioner has not resorted to till date.” 3. Learned counsel for the fourth respondent reiterates what is stated in the Statement and submits that the fourth respondent has no plan at present to widen the road as W.P.(C).NO.7114/2010L :: 3 :: apprehended by the petitioner and if there is any such need, they will resort to the legal procedures by way of acquiring the property of the petitioner. 4. We notice that the petitioner has already obtained a Decree as against respondents 4 and 5 (Exts.P1 and P2). We take note of the stand in the Statement as already referred to and record the same. In the light of these developments, there is no need for any orders by this Court. Accordingly, we dispose of the Writ Petition in terms of the Statement and the submissions of the fourth respondent. It is certainly open to the petitioner to approach this civil court if there is any violation of the Decree by respondents 4 and 5. Sd/= K.M. JOSEPH, JUDGE Sd/= M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JUDGE kbk. // True Copy // PS to Judge