IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN THURSDAY, THE 14TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 25TH MAGHA 1929 WP(C).No. 37915 of 2007(L) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ C.U PATHROSE,S/O. ULHANNAN, AGED 57 YEARS, CHERIKKAKALAYIL HOUSE, PIRAVOM. BY ADV. SRI.BIJU ABRAHAM RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE SUB INSEPCTOR OF POLICE \PIRAVOM POLICE STATION, PIRAVOM 686 664 2. PIRAVOM GRAMA PANCHAYATH PIRAVOM REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER VILLAGE OFFICE, PIRAVOM. 4. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER OFFICE OF THE ASST. EXE.ENGINEER MINOR IRRIGATION SUB DIVISION MULUNTHURUTHY 682 314. 5. K.M.SALIM, S/O. PAVITHRAN AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS THANICKAL HOUSE, PAZHOOR, PIRAVOM. 6. K.GEORGE. NADUVAPILLIL HOUSE PRIAVOM 686664. BY ADV. SRI.S.SREEKUMAR SRI.P.FAZIL SMT.JAYASREE MANOJ GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.A.SALIM. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC 37915/2007 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXTS. EXT.P1 - A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) NO.7673/2007 DATED 7.3.2007. EXT.P2 - A TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, PIRAVOM DATED 8.6.2006. EXT.P3 - A TRUE COPY OF THE LOCATION SKETCH ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, PIRAVOM. EXT.P4 - A TRUE COPY OF THE DECREE IN OS 335/2001 ON THE FILES OF MUNSIFF'S COURT, MUVATTUPUZHA DATED 28.9.2004. EXT.P5 - A TRUE COPY OF THE SKETCH PREPARED AND ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT SURVEYOR DATED 2.8.2007. EXT.P6 - A TRUE COPY OF THE PLAN APPROVED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT PANCHAYAT DATED 5.9.2007. EXT.P7 - A TRUE COPY OF RECEIPT OF FEES FOR BUILDING PERMIT ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER DATED 5.9.2007. EXT.P8 - A TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT PERMITTING HIM TO CONSTRUCT BUILDING INCLUDING CELLAR DATED 5.9.2007. EXT.P9 - A TRUE COPY OF THE INFORMATION FURNISHED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER DATED 26.11.2007. EXT.P10 – A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 28.11.2007 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P11 - A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 3.12.2007. RESPONDENTS' EXTS. EXT.R4(a) – A TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE NADAKKADA – VANDILAM PADASEKHARA SAMITHI. EXT.R4(b) – A TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE COMPLAINT. EXT.R4(c) – A TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE VILLAGE OFFICER, PIRAVOM. EXT.R4(d) – A TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE F.I.R. EXT.R6(a) – THE TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S. NO.520/2007 ON THE FILES OF MUNSIFF'S COURT, MUVATTUPUZHA. EXT.R6(b) – THE TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE TAHSILDAR, MUVATTUPUZHA DATED 1.11.95 TO THE 6TH RESPONDENT. WPC 37915/2007 EXT.R6(c) – THE TRUE COPY OF THE SURVEY PLAN PREPARED BY THE TALUK SURVEYOR, MUVATTUPUZHA. EXT.R6(d) – THE TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED 10.5.2007 FILED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT BEFORE THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF SURVEY, ERNAKULAM. EXT.R6(e) – THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMMISSIONER'S REPORT AND ROUGH SKETCH IN O.S. NO.335 OF 2001 ON THE FILES OF MUNSIFF'S COURT, MUVATTUPUZHA. /TRUE COPY/ K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & P.N.RAVINDRAN, JJ. ----------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO. 37915 OF 2007-L ----------------------------------------- Dated 14th February, 2008. JUDGMENT Balakrishnan Nair, J. The petitioner submits, he is the owner of 2.5 cents of land in Sy.No.713/5 of Piravom village, which he obtained as per document No.273/93 of S.R.O., Piravom. Ext.P2 is the possession certificate in relation to that property and Ext.P3 is the location sketch furnished by the Village Officer, Piravom. The petitioner wanted to construct a building there. So, he obtained a building permit from the Piravom Grama Panchayat for the said purpose. Ext.P8 is the said building permit. Ext.P6 is the approved plan annexed to that permit. But, when he started the construction, the 6th respondent as also the 5th respondent, who is the Panchayat President obstructed to the said construction. The officials of the Minor Irrigation Department also interfered, alleging that the petitioner is encroaching into a puramboke land. The petitioner submits, he is constructing the building strictly in accordance with the plan approved by WPC 37915/2007 2 the local authority and also in the property for which he is having title. Feeling aggrieved by the obstruction, he has preferred Exts.P10 and P11 representations before the police, seeking protection for the construction. 2. The 4th respondent has filed a counter affidavit, in which it is submitted that under the guise of construction of the building in accordance with the building permit, the petitioner has removed earth from the Government land and thereby weakened the bund of an irrigation canal. Thereupon, the local Padasekhara Samithy filed Ext.R4(a) complaint before the Assistant Engineer, Minor Irrigation, Piravom. On receipt of the said complaint, the Minor Irrigation Department looked into the matter and a complaint was filed by the Assistant Engineer before the S.I of Police, pointing out that the petitioner is making a construction, encroaching into the Government land. The Village Officer has issued Ext.R4(c) certificate , stating that the petitioner removed earth from the bund belonging to the Government. In the light of the information lodged by the officials, the police have registered a crime against the petitioner under Sections 447, 427 and 430 of the I.P.C. Ext.R4(d) is the F.I.R in that case. The 6th respondent has filed a counter affidavit, resisting the prayers in the writ petition. His apprehension is that under the guise of making the construction, the petitioner may encroach into his property. It is also submitted that earlier, WPC 37915/2007 3 the old building of the petitioner was abutting his boundary. In view of the Building Rules, the new construction cannot be made on the boundary of the petitioner, it is submitted. 3. We heard the learned counsel for the Panchayat also. We notice that the grievance of the petitioner is that his right to construct a building in accordance with the building permit granted by the Panchayat is being infringed by the officials of the Minor Irrigation Department, the Panchayat President and the 6th respondent. It is a civil dispute, which has to be resolved through the forum of the civil court. The police cannot be asked to interfere in this. The petitioner can get effective remedy by moving the civil court. See the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in George v. Circle Inspector of Police [1990(1) KLT 741], wherein it was held as follows: “Ordinarily, a civil suit will lie to prevent trespass and to obtain an order of injunction. In an ordinary action in civil court, it is possible to obtain the relief of declaration and also injunction. The civil court can grant relief restraining obstruction or impediment to the enjoyment of property or the goods. So also affirmative relief to load and unload goods can be given. The civil court will be in a better position to evaluate and grant relief, appropriate to the occasion, even if circumstances require the taking of oral and documentary evidence. The court granting the injunction can implement it by giving consequential directions, including direction to the police authorities to effectuate the order. It can also punish persons WPC 37915/2007 4 for disobeying the order of court, under O.39 R.1 C.P.C read with R.2-A. The advantages of declaratory judgment over mandamus need not be over stated.” In view of the above position, we are not inclined to grant the reliefs sought in this writ petition. Accordingly, it is dismissed without prejudice to the contentions of the petitioner and his right to move other forums for appropriate reliefs. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE. P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE. Nm/