IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN MONDAY, THE 10TH JANUARY 2011 / 20TH POUSHA 1932 WP(C).No. 30420 of 2010(B) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- MAMMI HAJI, URANKANDATHIL THADATHIL HOUSE, THENNALA P.O., THARAYIL, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.BABU KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, POLICE HEAD QUARTERS,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TIRURANGADI. 3. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, MALAPPURAM. 4. ALIKKUTTY, S/O.SEYDALAVI, MANGANNI, THENNALA, TIRURANGADI. 5. THE TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, TIRURANGADI. R1 TO R3 & R5 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. T.K.VIPINDAS R4 BY ADV. SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.30420/2010 B APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE ORDER IN WP.NO.24838/08 OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA DTD. 18/08/08. P2: COPY OF THE WOUND CERTIFICATE ISSUED FROM GOVT.TALUK HOSPITAL, TIRURANGADI DTD. 4/05/10. P3: COPY OF THE FIR DTD. 18/04/2010. P4: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT DTD. 17/05/2010. P5: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) NO.15874/10 OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA DTD. 10/08/2010. P6: COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT FILED BY 4TH RESPONDENT IN WP.NO.15874/10 DTD. 1/06/2010. P7: COPY OF THE REFERENCE CARD ISSUED FROM THE MEDICAL COLLEGE KOZHIKODE DTD. 13/09/2010. P8: COPY OF THE REFERENCE CARD ISSUED BY GOVT. MEDICAL COLLEGE, TIRURANGADI DTD. 17/09/2010. P9: COPY OF THE F.I. STATEMENT DTD. 12/09/2010. P10: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT DTD. 14/10/2010. P11: COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 5TH RESPONDENT DTD. 7/10/2010. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO JUDGE Kss R.BASANT & K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------------------------ W.P(C) NO:30420 OF 2010 B ----------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 10th January, 2011. JUDGMENT Basant, J. The petitioner has come to this Court with this petition for issue of direction under Art.226 of the Constitution to afford police protection to the petitioner against the illegal conduct of the fourth respondent. 2. This is not the first time that the petitioner has come to this Court. Petitioner is a person who is said to be aged about 85 years. He claims to be the owner of a property measuring about 1 acre. There is a path way on the south of the petitioner's property. There was an attempt to widen the said pathway. Petitioner submits that he is unwilling to give his property for the widening of the pathway. According to the petitioner no portion of his property has been acquired. He has not consented to the widening of the pathway taking any part of his property for such widening. When the petitioner came to this Court earlier Ext.P5 judgment was passed. It was brought to the notice to the Bench then that the widening has already taken WPC 30420/2010 2 place. The Court in Ext.P5 observed that the petitioner must approach competent courts invoking appropriate provision for redressal of his grievance about the widening of the pathway. Protection for the life of the petitioner was granted. 3. The petitioner has come to this Court again now. There is no action initiated against the police alleging that there has been contempt committed in not complying with Ext.P5 order. What then is the grievance of the petitioner? According to the petitioner, the petitioner wants to get his southern boundary identified. For this purpose he has made the necessary application before the fifth respondent, Tahsildar. Necessay action has not been taken by the Tahsildar. The petitioner prays that the Tahsildar may be directed to take necessary action to fix the boundary and police protection may be afforded to the petitioner to get such work done by the Tahsildar. This in short is the plea. 4. In the light of Ext.P5 the petitioner is at liberty to take appropriate action to protect his interest in relation to the property. To seek such relief the petitioner wants the southern boundary to be fixed. He has applied to the Tahsildar, the fifth respondent under Ext.P11. WPC 30420/2010 3 5. The learned Govt. Pleader after taking instructions from respondents 1 to 3 and 5 submits that the needful shall be done by the Tahsildar to get the boundaries of the petitioner's property fixed in accordance with law. If there be any illegal obstruction to such work being done by the fourth respondent, necessary police protection shall be afforded by the fifth respondent or officials acting under him. According to the learned Govt. Pleader the authorities can only point out the boundary and if there be any trespass as alleged by the petitioner, it is up to him to take necessary action in accordance with law. 6. Learned counsel for the fourth respondent submits that the assertion of the fourth respondent is that the pathway has already been widened with the permission of the petitioner. Such widening has been done by the Panchayat. The petitioner may not be permitted to take law into his hands and reduce the width of the pathway. Subject to the rights of the petitioner if any to reclaim any portion of the pathway referred above, the fourth respondent has no objection against the identification of the boundaries of the petitioner's property by the authorities in accordance with law. Appropriate directions may be issued, it is WPC 30420/2010 4 submitted. 7. We have considered all the relevant aspects. Ext.P5 judgment makes it clear that the widening of the pathway has already taken place. The petitioner is certainly entitled to get his boundaries identified in accordance with law. If there is any trespass into his property for the widening of the pathway, if he has not given such consent to the widening of the pathway needless to mention that petitioner can initiate necessary proceedings for recovery of his property. 8. We record the submission of the learned Govt. Pleader on behalf of the fifth respondent that necessary action shall be taken if a proper application is made to get the boundaries of the petitioner identified . We record the submission of the learned Govt. Pleader that respondents 1 to 3 shall afford necessary protection to the fifth respondent or officials acting under him to get such boundaries fixed in accordance with law. We record the submission of the fourth respondent that the fourth respondent shall not raise any objections/obstructions to such boundary being identified. We are in these circumstances satisfied that no directions are necessary in this writ petition. If there is any obstruction to fifth respondent or officials acting under him to WPC 30420/2010 5 get the boundaries of the property identified in accordance with law necessary protection shall be afforded by respondents 1 to 3. Needless to say action will have to be taken by the fifth respondent and other officials after issuing notice to all concerned to get the boundary identified in accordance with law. We make it clear that this direction will not in any way clothe the petitioner with right to claim recovery of his property by use of force. After getting the boundaries of the property identified, the petitioner shall have to take necessary steps in accordance with law to get his property recovered, if such property is already included in the widened pathway. 9. This writ petition in the above circumstances is allowed in part to the above extent. R.BASANT Judge K. SURENDRA MOHAN Judge jj WPC 30420/2010 6