N.Santhosh Kumar vs The Commissioner Of Police
2021 Latest Caselaw 8613 Ker

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                PRESENT

          THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

    TUESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 25TH PHALGUNA, 1942

                        WP(C).No.6653 OF 2020(F)


PETITIONER/S:

                N.SANTHOSH KUMAR,
                AGED 50 YEARS,
                S/O. NARAYANAN NAIR, SWASTHI MANAGALAPPILLIL ,
                THRIPUNITHURA, NADAMA VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK,
                ERNAKULAM-682 301.

                BY ADVS.
                SRI.K.N.ABHILASH
                SRI.SUNIL NAIR PALAKKAT
                SRI.M.A.AHAMMAD SAHEER
                SRI.P.B.MUHAMMED AJEESH

RESPONDENT/S:

      1         THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE,
                KOCHI CITY, OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE,
                ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-682 032.

      2         THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
                MARADU POLICE STATION, MARADU, ERNAKUALM DISTRICT,
                PIN-682 304.

      3         HARI SHARMA,
                THELAPARAMBIL HOUSE, TRIPUNITHURA P.O.,TRIPUNITHURA ,
                ERNAKULAM DISTRICT,PIN-682 301.

                R3 BY ADV. SRI.SHERRY J. THOMAS

                R1 & R2 BY SRI. P.P. THAJUDEEN, GOVERNMENT PLEADER

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD            ON
16.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C).No.6653 OF 2020(F)                     2




                                         JUDGMENT

This petition is filed seeking a direction to the respondents 1 and 2 to

afford adequate protection to the life of the petitioner so as to enable him

to enter the property purchased by him and two others as per Ext.P1 sale

deed.

2. According to the petitioner, as per Ext.P1 sale deed, property

having an extent of 14.78 Ares was purchased by him and two others. He

would refer to Exts.P2 to P4 and Exts.P7 to P9 to bring home the fact that

the property is lying as a purayidom. According to him, he is intending to

construct a residential home in the above property but even his entry into

the property is being obstructed by the 3rd respondent. In the said

circumstances, he approached the 2nd respondent and lodged an oral

complaint. According to him, no assistance was rendered. It is in the afore

circumstances that he has approached this Court seeking the following

reliefs:

i. Issue writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to directing or commanding the 1st and 2nd respondents to provide adequate protection to the life of the petitioner. ii. Issue writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing or commanding the 1st and 2nd respondents to provide adequate protection to the life of the petitioner for entering into

the property covered by Ext.P1.

3. The party respondent has filed a counter affidavit wherein it is

stated that the property of the petitioner is actually a paddy land and is

situated in a very low lying area. According to the respondent, the

petitioner and his associates attempted to dump earth and level the

property. When it was noticed that the attempt of the petitioner was to

violate the provisions of the Conservation of Paddy land and Wetland Act,

2008, a complaint was lodged before the statutory authorities. It is stated

that the revenue authorities have also taken note of his grievance and an

inquiry has been ordered.

4. I have heard Sri. Abhilash K.N., the learned counsel appearing

for the petitioner, Sri. Sherry J. Thomas, the learned counsel appearing for

the party respondent and the learned Government Pleader.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that

the petitioner cannot be prevented from entering into his property on the

apprehension that he would carry out developmental work without securing

permission.

6. It is submitted by the learned Government Pleader that the

petitioner has not approached the police and lodged a written complaint.

7. Sri. Sherry submitted that the party respondent has not

obstructed the petitioner from entering into his property. He contends that

the petitioner should not be permitted to carry out any development activity

such as dumping of sand or any construction activity without securing

appropriate permit from the statutory authorities and the Local Self

Government Institutions.

8. I have considered the submissions advanced. The limited prayer

of the petitioner is to issue directions to the official respondents to grant

protection for his life when he enters the property covered under Ext.P1.

No one can obstruct the owner of a property from entering into the same

on the apprehension that he would carry out any development activity. I am

of the view that the grievance of both parties would be redressed by

ordering that if the petitioner intends to carry out any developmental

activity, he shall do so only after obtaining permits and licences from the

statutory authority as well as the local authority.

In the result, this writ petition is disposed of with the following

directions:

1. The party respondent shall not obstruct the entry of the

petitioner or the other co-owners into the property covered by

Ext.P1.

2. If the petitioner intends to carry out any developmental or

construction activity, he shall approach the statutory

authority/Local Self Government Institutions and obtain permits

and licences for the same. Only thereafter shall the petitioner

commence any activity as aforesaid.

3. If direction(a) is violated, the petitioner shall approach the 2nd

respondent and lodge a complaint. If any such complaint is

received, the 2nd respondent shall look into the genuineness of

the allegations and take appropriate action including grant of

protection.

SD/-

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

JUDGE NS

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.1729/2019 DATED 25.07.2019 OF THE SRO MARADU EXECUTED BY LAKSHMI NARAYANAN POTTI AND OTHERS IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER AND OTHERS.

EXHIBIT P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE BASIC TAX REGISTER DATED NIL ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER MARADU, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

EXHIBIT P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE THANDAPER 20.03.2019 ACCOUNT RELATED TO THE PROPERTY

EXHIBIT P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 05.09.2019 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER MARADU, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

EXHIBIT P5 THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE PROPERTY.

EXHIBIT P6 THE TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 11.07.2020 ISSUED BY THE MARADU MUNICIPALITY.

EXHIBIT P7 THE TRUE COPY OF THE TANDAPER ACCOUNT RELATED TO 247/32 ISSUED BY THE MARADU VILLAGE.

EXHIBIT P8 THE TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF BASIC TAX REGISTER ISSUED BY VILLAGE OFFICER, MARADU.

EXHIBIT P9 THE TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT DATED 02.03.2021 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, MARADU.

RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT R3 (a) THE TRUE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE ACTUAL LIE AND NATURE OF THE PROPERTY.

EXHIBIT R3 (b) THE TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 19.4.2018.

EXHIBIT R3 (c) TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 19.4.2018

EXHIBIT R3 (d) THE TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT DATED 5.3.2019.

 EXHIBIT R3 (e)       THE TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY
                      THE RDO DATED 5.3.2019


                                 //TRUE COPY//    P.A.TO JUDGE