IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS TUESDAY, THE 20TH JULY 2010 / 29TH ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 16138 of 2010(N) --------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------------- S.LEELADEVI, W/O. LATE K.SREEDHARAN, AGED 63 YEARS, RESIDING AT IKKARAVILAKOM, PETTAH,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.BINOY VASUDEVAN SMT.P.G.BABITHA RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------- 1. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PETTAH POLICE STATION,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VANCHIYOOR POLICE STATION,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. ASHKUMAR, S/O. SATHYAN, AGED 38 YEARS, KARTHIKA, KIDAYILKONAM, PAPER MILL ROAD, SREEKARIYAM,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. SALILKUMAR @ JOSHKUMAR, AGED 35 YEARS, C.C.NO.29/182, THENGAPURA LANE, KAITHAMUKKU,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SHRI T.K. VIPINDAS. ADV. SRI.M.R.ANANDAKUTTAN FOR R3,4 SMT.M.A.ZOHRA FOR R3,4 SRI.R.S.MADHU FOR R3,4 SRI.MAHESH ANANDAKUTTAN FOR R3,4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX IN W.P.(C).NO.16138 OF 2010 N PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN O.S.NO.2/08. EXT.P2TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BEFORE THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P3TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR DATED 18.03.2010. EXT.P4TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING THE PETITIONER'S HUT. EXT.P5TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE FIRST AND SECOND RESPONDENTS ON 19.04.2010. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: EXT.R3(A) TRUE COPY OF COMMISSION REPORT DATED 26.12.2007. EXT.R3(B) TRUE COPY OF COMMISSION REPORT DATED 24.10.2008. // True Copy // PS to Judge K. M. JOSEPH & M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. -------------------------------------------------- W.P(C). NO. 16138 OF 2010 N --------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 20th July, 2010 JUDGMENT K.M. Joseph, J. Petitioner has approached this Court with the following prayer: “Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the first and second respondents to afford adequate, effective and meaningful protection to the petitioner and her property with the same being interfered with by the third and the fourth respondents or their henchmen.” 2. Briefly put, the case of the petitioner is as follows: Petitioner is a widow. Respondents 3 and 4 are residing with their mother in the property adjacent to that of the petitioner. Petitioner is residing in the building having C.C.No.30/733. The property originally belonged to one Kochappi Kunjulakshmi. The said property is having an extent WPC.16138/2010 N 2 of 11 cents. There was a partition and the petitioner was allotted 2.20 cents. Respondents 3 and 4 filed a Suit as OS.No.2 of 2008 before the Munsiff Court, Thiruvananthapuram. The learned Munsiff decreed the Suit restraining the petitioner by way of prohibitory injunction from constructing any building in the property belonging to respondents 3 and 4 and their mother. Ext.P2 is a copy of the representation filed by the petitioner for effecting mutation and to accept basic tax. It is stated that by Ext.P3, the District Collector, after getting a Report from the Village Officer, directed the Village Officer to effect mutation in respect of 2.200 cents of property belonging to the petitioner. It is stated that respondents 3 and 4 became furious because of Ext.P3 order and decided that the petitioner will not be permitted to live peacefully. Ext.P4 is a photograph. It is stated that the petitioner filed Ext.P5 complaint on the averment that respondents 3 and 4 had earlier tried to demolish the building where the petitioner is staying by putting fire and the present house is the remaining one after the fire. WPC.16138/2010 N 3 3. A Counter Affidavit is filed by respondents 3 and 4, inter alia, stating as follows: The building T.C.No.30/733 collapsed due to lack of maintenance. Petitioner and her men trespassed into the property of the third respondent to restore the building and OS.No.2 of 2008 was filed. The Suit was decreed restraining the petitioner by a prohibitory injunction from constructing any new building in violation of the Kerala Municipal Building Rules. That there is no building in existence, is clear from Ext.P1 Judgment. Respondents 3 and 4 also referred to two Commission Reports which are produced as Exts.R3(a) and R3 (b). It is stated that there is no threat to the life of the petitioner and she is free to construct building as per the prevailing building rules without trespassing into the property of respondents 3 and 4. 4. We heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel appearing for respondents 3 and 4 and also the learned Government Pleader. The prayer in the Writ Petition, as we WPC.16138/2010 N 4 have already noticed, is to command respondents 1 and 2 to afford adequate, effective and meaningful protection to the petitioner and her property without any interference by respondents 3 and 4. Actually, the petitioner has not sought any adjudication as such before the civil court. No doubt, the petitioner may rely on Ext.P1 itself. But in Ext.P1, the civil court has injuncted the petitioner from putting up any structure in violation of the Kerala Building Rules. There is serious dispute that the building which the petitioner claims is the one which is made after the earlier building collapsed and the learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submits that it was not put up after getting permission, after Ext.P1 order was passed. Having regard to the nature of the pleadings, we are inclined to dispose of the Writ Petition as follows: We record the submission of respondents 3 and 4 that there had never been and there will not be any threat to the life of the petitioner. We do not think that the prayer for police protection to the petitioner and her property as against respondents 3 and 4 WPC.16138/2010 N 5 or their henchmen should be granted as such in this Writ Petition. We leave it free to the petitioner to work out her remedy in the appropriate Forum, necessarily also in compliance with Ext.P1 Judgment. We further make it clear that if the petitioner complains of any cognizable offence committed by respondents 3 and 4, appropriate action shall be taken by the second respondent. Sd/= K.M. JOSEPH, JUDGE Sd/= M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JUDGE kbk. // True Copy // PS to Judge