IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN MONDAY, THE 14TH MARCH 2011 / 23RD PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 678 of 2011(H) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ JULY SUMARAJ, W/O.SUMARAJAN, S.R.MANDIRAM, CHALUVILAVEEDU, BHARATHANOOR P.O.,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 616 BY ADV. SRI.A.RAJASIMHAN RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, POLICE HEAD QUARTERS, VALLAYAMBALAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -695 001 2. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE RURAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 003 3. DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE ATTINGAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 101 4. SUB INSPECTOROF POLICE, PANGODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 609 5. VASANTHARAN, MANGALATH HARD WARES, BHARATHANOOR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 616 6. SHAFI, SHAMNAD MANZIL,MARANADU, BHARATHANOOR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 616 7. RAJENDRANPILLA,NELLIYOTTUKONATH VADAKKUMKARAPUTHENVEEDU, MARANADU, BHARATHANOOR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695616 sts WP(C)NO.678/2011 8. ANI @ PARA ANI, SHARAVANABHAVAN, MARANADU, BHARATHANOOR P.O.,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 616 9. RAVEENDRAN @ WATERKUTTAN, CHARUVILAPUTHENVEEDU, MARANADU, BHARATHANOOR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 616 * ADDL.R10 TO R12 IMPLEADED *ADDL.R10: ASSISTANT ENGINEER, P.W.D., PALODE, PACHA.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 562. * IS IMPLEADED VIDE ORDER DATED 20/1/2011 IN I.A.NO.1057/2011. *ADDL.R11: SECRETARY, PANGODE GRAMA PANCHAYAT, PANGODE.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. *ADDL.R12: TAHASILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, NEDUMANGAD, NEDUMANGAD.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. * ARE IMPLEADED VIDE ORDER DATED 27/1/2011 IN I.A.NO.1319/2011. R1 TO R4, R10 & R12 BY GOVT PLEADER SMT.C.M.CHARISMA R5 TO R9 BY ADV. SRI.K.P.RAJEEVAN SRI.N.SASIDHARAN UNNITHAN ADDL.R11 BY ADV. SRI.BIJU .C. ABRAHAM THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts WP(C)NO.678/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1 COPT OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 28/3/2010 ISSUED BY THE PANGODE VILLAGE OFFICE. P2 COPY OF THE PERMIT DATED 7/12/2010 ISSUED BY THE PANGODE PANCHAYAT OFFICE. P3 COPY OF THE APPROVED PLAN ISSUED BY THE PANGODE PANCHAYAT OFFICE. P4 COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 29/12/2010 ISSUED BY THE TALUK SURVEYOR. P5 COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH GIVEN TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT. P6 COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 2/1/2011 SUBMITTEDTO THE 4TH RESPONDENT. P7 COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 4/1/2011 SUBMITTED TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P8 COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 31/12/2010 P9 COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 12/1/2011 RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: R5(A) COPY OF THE MASS PETITION 22/12/2010 SUBMITTED TO THE SECRETARY,PANGODE GRAMA PANCHAYAT. R5(B) COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 18/12/2010 ISSUED BY THE ASST.ENGINEER PWD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R5(C) COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 5/1/2011 OF THE HONOURABLE OMBUDSMAN IN OP.NO.2073/2010. /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO.JUDGE sts R.BASANT & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. *********************** W.P(C) No.678 of 2011-H ***************************** Dated this the 14th day of March, 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 1 to 4 to afford police protection to the petitioner to enable her to construct a compound wall as authorised by Ext.P2 building permit issued in the name of her husband. 2. The husband of the petitioner is employed abroad. In his absence, it is the grievance of the petitioner that miscreants are trespassing into the property of the petitioner. She wants her property to be protected as enabled by Ext.P2 building permit. Respondents 5 to 9, whom the petitioner describes to be local miscreants, are causing unjustified obstruction to the construction of the compound wall under Ext.P2. According to the petitioner, they have no justifiable reason to raise any obstruction/objection. They are just antisocial elements who want to trespass into the property of the petitioner and make use of the petitioner's property as it pleases them. Respondents 4 to 6 are not taking proper steps and are guilty of inaction. It is W.P(C) No.678 of 2011 3 with these allegations that the petitioner has come to this Court. 3. Respondents 5 to 9 have entered appearance through their counsel. They raise no other objection except that the construction of the compound wall would amount to trespass into the public road in front. On the basis of this stand taken by respondents 5 to 9, additional respondents 10 to 12 were impleaded. Additional respondent No.10 is the Assistant Engineer, P.W.D and additional respondent No.12 is the Tahsildar. Additional respondent No.11 is the Panchayat, which issued Ext.P2. 4. There was dispute as to whether there is any encroachment into the P.W.D road in front. A long time has been taken up. We directed that respondents 10 and 12 must together inspect the property and take a specific stand as to whether there is any encroachment into the PWD road in front. 5. The learned Government Pleader after taking instructions from respondents 10 and 12 submits that there is no such encroachment into P.W.D road and respondents 10 and 12 have no objection against the proposed construction of the compound wall. W.P(C) No.678 of 2011 3 6. We are, in these circumstances, satisfied that the petitioner is entitled to succeed. 7. In the result: a) This Writ Petition is allowed; b) Respondents 1 to 4 are directed to afford adequate and sufficient police protection to enable the petitioner to undertake the construction of the compound wall in accordance with Ext.P2 permit. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE) rtr/ W.P(C) No.678 of 2011 3 R.BASANT & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. *********************** W.P(C) No.678 of 2011 3 W.P(C) No.678 of 2011 ***************************** Dated this the 25th day of February, 2011 ORDER BASANT, J. The dispute is only as to whether the proposed boundary compound wall which the petitioner seeks to construct trespasses into the public road. Respondent No.12 has already informed the Court that there is no objection against construction of the compound wall in accordance with the permit issued. Respondent No.10 has not taken any specific stand so far. Respondent No.10 raises a grievance that respondent No.12 has identified the boundary without notice to respondent No.10. We do, in these circumstances, direct respondents 10 and 12 to inspect the property jointly within a period of 10 days and inform the Court whether respondent No.10 has any objection against construction of the boundary for which respondent No.12 has already submitted that he has no objection. The learned Government Pleader shall direct respondent No.10 to take a specific stand by the next date of posting. W.P(C) No.678 of 2011 3 2. Call on 14.03.2011 finally for disposal. 3. Hand over a copy of this order to the learned Government Pleader. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE) rtr/