IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN MONDAY, THE 20TH JUNE 2011 / 30TH JYAISHTA 1933 WP(C).No. 2321 of 2010(M) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ BINU KURIAKOSE @ BINU ABRAHAM, "KOCHAKKENS", A-57, NORTH GIRI NAGAR, GANDHI NAGAR, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.LAL GEORGE RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, THRIKKAKARA, KOCHI CITY. 3. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THRIPUNITHURA. 4. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM. 5. THRIPUNITHURA MUNICIPALITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, THRIPUNITHURA. 6. SHRI.SASI, SECRETARY, KARSHAKA THOZHILALI UNION (AITUC), C.P.I. OFFICE, THRIPUNITHURA. R1 TO R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.C.M.CHARISMA R5 BY ADV. SRI.V.M.KURIAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts 2/- - 2- WP(C)NO.2321/2010 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1 COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.279/09. P2 COPY OF THESALE DEEDNO.235/08. P3 COPY OF THE LOCATION CERTIFICATE. P4 COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE NO.A4/666/09, ISSUED BY THE SENIOR TOWN PLANNER, KOCHI. P5 COPY OF THE RESOLUTION NO.7. P5(A) COPY OF THE RESOLUTION NO.8. P5(B) COPY OF THE RESOLUTION NO.9. P6 COPY OF THE RECEIPT. P6(A) COPY OF THE RECEIPT P6(B) COPY OF THE RECEIPT P7 COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER. P8 COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO.JUDGE sts R.BASANT & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. *********************** W.P(C) No.2321 of 2010-M ***************************** Dated this the 20th day of June, 2011 JUDGMENT BASANT, J. The petitioner has come to this Court seeking issue of directions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to respondents 2 and 3 - police officials under the 1st respondent State, to afford protection to the petitioner to carry out the work of development of land for which he is duly licenced and permitted, against any illegal obstructions that may be raised by the 6th respondent and persons acting under him. 2. According to the petitioner, she and her son are the owners of 55 cents of land. According to her, it is a converted land and the provisions of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act & Rules are not applicable to the land in question. By Exts.P5 and P6, the 5th respondent Tripunithura Municipality had granted permission to the petitioner to develop that land under Rule 5 of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules. As directed in Ext.P5, a total amount of Rs.2.75 lakhs has already been remitted by the petitioner as development fee demanded by the 4th respondent. W.P(C) No.2321 of 2010-M 2 3. When the petitioner started construction, the 6th respondent and persons acting under him without any valid reason raised objections to the construction. It is the case of the petitioner that the 6th respondent or persons acting under him have no right to interfere with the development of land for which she is duly authorised. She had come to this Court with W.P(c) No.10362 of 2009 to enable her to undertake the construction. In that petition, the Bench had issued a direction that the petitioner can undertake the work at her risk. 4. In these circumstances, the petitioner is in law entitled to undertake the development work. Against the illegal obstruction raised by the 6th respondent, the petitioner had complained to the police, but no action has been taken. In these circumstances, it is prayed that appropriate directions may be issued. 5. The learned Government Pleader has entered appearance for respondents 1 to 4. Respondent No.1 is the State of Kerala. Respondents 2 and 3 are police officials and the 4th respondent is the District Collector. The 5th respondent has entered appearance, but no objection has been raised by the 5th respondent. There is no representation for the 5th respondent W.P(C) No.2321 of 2010-M 3 when the matter came up for hearing. We assume that the 5th respondent has no objection against the prayer made in this Writ Petition. 6. The 6th respondent, though served, has not chosen to enter appearance. We assume that the 6th respondent does not also want to raise any objection. 7. The learned Government Pleader after taking instructions had submitted that the data bank under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act & Rules has not been finalised yet. According to the learned Government Pleader, at present the land in question has been provisionally included in the data bank as partially converted dry land. It is not included as wet land or paddy land, it is conceded. Ext.P3 location plan and Ext.P4 communication from the Senior Town Planner, Ernakulam, are relied on by the petitioner to contend that the land in the survey number in which the property is situated is earmarked as residential zone by the municipality. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is entitled to undertake the construction at her risk as per Ext.P7 order. The petitioner is willing to consciously undertake the risk involved. The 6th respondent and persons W.P(C) No.2321 of 2010-M 4 acting under him have no right to raise any objections against the development of land by the petitioner in accordance with Ext.P7 interim order. It is prayed that appropriate directions may be issued in the matter. 9. The learned Government Pleader after discussions submits that the revenue officials do not have any objection against the petitioner undertaking the work in accordance with Ext.P7 at the risk of the petitioner and subject to the result of W.P(c) No.10362 of 2009. 10. Having rendered our anxious consideration to all the relevant inputs, we are satisfied that police protection can be afforded as prayed for. 11. In the result: a) This Writ Petition is allowed; b) Respondents 1 and 2 are directed to afford police protection to the petitioner to undertake the work of development of land as permitted under Ext.P5 resolutions against any illegal obstruction that may be raised by the 6th respondent and persons acting under him; c) We make it clear that the development work undertaken by the petitioner on the strength of this judgment W.P(C) No.2321 of 2010-M 5 shall be subject to Ext.P7 interim order passed by this Court in W.P(c) No.10362 of 2009 and also subject to final disposal of W.P (c) No.10362 of 2009. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE) rtr/