Alexander vs State Of Kerala
2022 Latest Caselaw 4249 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                PRESENT
               THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
     THURSDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF APRIL 2022 / 17TH CHAITHRA, 1944
                        WP(C) NO. 5977 OF 2022
PETITIONER:

          ALEXANDER
          AGED 74 YEARS
          S/O. VARGHESE, MELADATH (H), EDANADU MURI,
          CHENGANNUR VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA-689123.

          BY ADV P.JINISH PAUL


RESPONDENTS:

    1     STATE OF KERALA
          REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO HOME AFFAIRS,
          SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM-695001.
    2     CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
          CHENGANNUR POLICE STATION, CHENGANNUR,
          ALAPPUZHA-689123.
    3     KUTTIYAMMA @ KUTTY,
          AGED 75 YEARS
          W/O. PAPPU, NANGADAMPURATHU VEETIL (NANGATTUPURAM),
          EDANADU MURI, CHENGANNUR VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA-689123.
    4     RETHI,
          AGED 42 YEARS
          D/O. KUTTIYAMMA, NANGADAMPURATHU VEETIL
          (NANGATTUPURAM), EDANADU MURI, CHENGANNUR VILLAGE,
          ALAPPUZHA-689123.
    5     REKHA,
          AGED 40 YEARS
          D/O. KUTTIYAMMA, NANGADAMPURATHU VEETIL
          (NANGATTUPURAM), EDANADU MURI, CHENGANNUR VILLAGE,
          ALAPPUZHA-689123.
          SMT. PRINCY XAVIER-SR.G.P


     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
07.04.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 5977 OF 2022

                                      2




                                JUDGMENT

Dated this the 7th day of April, 2022

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned

Government Pleader. Though notice is served on respondents 3 to 5,

there is no appearance for the said respondents.

2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the

party respondents have preferred a suit before the Munsiff Court

claiming a right to use the pathway to the petitioner's property which

had been dismissed by Ext.P2 judgment dated 31.01.2015. It is

therefore contended that the party respondents have no claim over the

property or the pathway in question.

3. The learned Government Pleader submits that the dispute between

the parties is in the nature of a civil dispute with regard to the use of a

pathway and there is no law and order situation prevalent.

4. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

petitioner requires police protection for the construction of a boundary

wall.

WP(C) NO. 5977 OF 2022

5. In case the petitioner faces any threat or obstruction from

respondents 3 to 5 for the constructions as permitted by law, the

petitioner may inform the 2nd respondent who shall take appropriate

steps to afford necessary protection to the life of the petitioner, his

family and employees.

This writ petition is ordered accordingly.

Sd/-

ANU SIVARAMAN JUDGE NP WP(C) NO. 5977 OF 2022

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 5977/2022

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

Exhibit P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.1308/1121 OF PATHANAPURAM SRO.

Exhibit P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 31.1.2015 IN O.S.NO.151/2012 ON THE FILES OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, CHENGANNUR.

Exhibit P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST DATED 9.2.2022 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

Exhibit P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT DATED 9.2.2022 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL