Mohan Balakrishnan vs The Station House Officer
2021 Latest Caselaw 18899 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                               PRESENT
          THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
    FRIDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 19TH BHADRA, 1943
                       WP(C) NO. 15293 OF 2021
PETITIONER:

          MOHAN BALAKRISHNAN,
          AGED 59 YEARS
          S/O. BALAKRISHNAN, VINU BHAVAN, PATTAMTHURUTHU P.O.,
          MUNDROTHURUTH, KOLLAM-691502.

          BY ADV M.R.SASITH



RESPONDENTS:

    1     THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
          EAST KALLADA POLICE STTION, KOLLAM-691502.

    2     SATHEESHKUMAR,
          ANIZHAM, VILLIMANGALAM, MANDROTHURUTHU, KOLLAM-691502.

    3     BIJI B.,
          W/O. SATHEESH KUMAR, ANIZHAM, VILLIMANGALAM,
          MANDROTHURUTHU, KOLLAM-691502.

    4     GOURI,
          D/O. SATHEESH KUMAR, ANIZHAM, VILLIMANGALAM,
          MANDROTHURUTHU, KOLLAM-691502.

    5     THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
          EAST KALLADA POLICE STATION, KOLLAM DISTRICT-691502.


     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
10.09.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 15293 OF 2021

                                 2


                              JUDGMENT

The petitioner says that he is the owner of a property

comprised of in Sy.No.413 of the Mundrothuruthu Panchayat

and that he obtained title to the same through an auction

conducted by the Dhanalakshmi Bank, Chittumala Branch,

consequent to which, Ext.P1 Sale Deed had been executed

by the authorised officer of the said Bank in his favour. He

says that, when he tried to construct a compound wall

around the property, respondents 2 to 4, who are its original

owners, obstructed it, thus constraining him to approach the

1st respondent - Station House Officer through Ext.P3

request seeking protection. The petitioner says that since

no action was taken by the said Authority on Ext.P3, he has

been forced to approach this Court.

2. I have heard Sri.M.R.Sasith Panicker, the learned

counsel for the petitioner; Sri.R.S.Kalkura, learned counsel

appearing for respondents 2 to 4 and the learned

Government Pleader.

3. Sri.R.S.Kalkura, learned counsel appearing for

respondents 2 to 4, submitted that the allegations of the WP(C) NO. 15293 OF 2021

petitioner against his clients are wholly without basis and

unfounded, and that the third respondent has already

approached the Debts Recovery Tribunal (for short,

'Tribunal') for cancellation of the sale, based on which the

petitioner is attempting to construct a compound wall. He,

however, submitted that his clients have not and will not, in

any manner, obstruct the construction using forcible means

and that they will only invoke their legal remedies before the

competent Forums in terms of law. He then alleged that the

attempt of the petitioner is to obtain orders from this Court,

so as to frustrate his clients' legitimate remedies before the

DRT; and he thus prayed that this Court dismiss this writ

petition.

4. The learned Government Pleader - Sri.E.C.Bineesh,

appearing for the official respondents, submitted that there

are no law and order issues in the area in question and that

the Police are keeping a close vigil to ensure that the peace

is not breached by any of the parties.

5. When I consider the afore submissions, it is clear

that the petitioner claims title over the property in question WP(C) NO. 15293 OF 2021

based on Ext.P1; while respondent No.3 says that the sale,

which led to the registration of the said document, is void

and that his client has already sought that it be set aside by

the Tribunal. However, it is indubitable that until such time

as the sale is set aside, the petitioner obtains the right to

deal with the property and to enforce his ownership over the

same.

6. I am, therefore, of the firm view that respondents 2

to 4 cannot obstruct the construction of the compound wall

in the property in question; but that their rights to approach

the Tribunal or to invoke their remedies before it cannot be

impeded in any manner on account of the pendency of this

proceedings or on account of my observations in this

judgment.

7. Resultantly, this writ petition is allowed, recording

the submissions of Sri.R.S.Kalkura that respondents 2 to 4

will not cause any forcible obstruction against the petitioner

enjoying the property in question; however, leaving liberty to

them to invoke all the remedies as may be available to them

before the competent Authority, including the Tribunal, WP(C) NO. 15293 OF 2021

without being trammeled by the observations herein.

Needless to say, the first respondent will ensure that

law and order is maintained in the area in question and that

none of the parties are permitted to breach peace in any

manner whatsoever.

Sd/- DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE stu WP(C) NO. 15293 OF 2021

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 15293/2021

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED EXECUTED BY THE PETITIONER AND MANAGER, SYNDICATE BANK DATED 11/03/2020.

Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE OUTPATIENT RECORD OF THE PETITIONER ISSUED BY HEADQUARTERS HOSPITAL SASTHAMCOTTA.

Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE POLICE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 12/04/2021.

Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT IN WPC NO.11580/2020 (V) OF HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA.