Kerala High Court
Ahammed Kutty vs District Police Chief on 1 February, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF FEBRUARY 2023 / 12TH MAGHA, 1944
WP(C) NO. 34945 OF 2022
PETITIONER:
AHAMMED KUTTY
AGED 69 YEARS
S/O KUNHEEDU,
KARUTHEDATH HOUSE,
KOTTUR,
INDIANOOR.P.O,
MALAPPURAM-676503.
BY ADVS.
AUGUSTINE JOSEPH
TONY AUGUSTINE
RESPONDENTS:
1 DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF
UPHILL,
MALAPPURAM-676521.
2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
KOTTAKKAL POLICE STATION,
KOTTAKKAL,
MALAPPURAM-676503.
3 PUTHUVIL UNNIKRISHNAN,
S/O.VELAYUDHAN,
PUTHUVIL HOUSE,
KOTTUR,
INDIANOOR P.O.
MALAPPURAM-676503.
4 GOPALAN,
S/O.VELAYUDHAN,
PUTHUVIL HOUSE,
KOTTUR,
INDIANOOR.P.O,
MALAPPURAM-676503.
W.P(C) No.34945 of 2022 2
5 DEVIDAS,
S/O.VELAYUDHAN,
PUTHUVIL HOUSE,
KOTTUR,
INDIANOOR.P.O,
MALAPPURAM-676503.
BY ADVs.
SRI.K.RAKESH FOR R3 TO R5
SRI.E.C.BINEESH, GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 01.02.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P(C) No.34945 of 2022 3
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 1st day of February, 2023
The petitioner, who is in possession of certain extent of
property in Kottakkal Village, has filed this writ petition seeking
to direct respondents 1 and 2 to grant sufficient police
protection to the life and property of the petitioner. From the
pleadings, it is seen that there is a dispute between the
petitioner and respondents 3 to 5 relating to the right to way in
respect of Kulamb Road (Kottur-Mundyan Thara Road) which
leads to the property of the petitioner.
2. It appears that when disputes arose between the
petitioner and respondents 3 to 5, the petitioner has
approached the Munsiff's Court, Manjeri by filing O.S.
No.474/2021. The Munsiff's Court, Manjeri has passed an
interim common order on 02.03.2022 dismissing the IAs filed
by the parties and directing the parties to maintain status quo
until the measurement of the property with the assistance of
Surveyor.
3. The grievance projected by the petitioner is that
respondents 3 to 5 are obstructing the right to pathway to the
petitioner's compound. As the Munsiff's Court has granted an
interim status quo order, the respondents have no right to
obstruct the petitioner's access to the property.
4. The petitioner also pointed out that consequent to
the obstruction, the petitioner has filed Ext.P7 complaint before
the Station House Officer, Kottakkal. The Station House Officer
is not taking any steps. In the circumstances, respondents 1
and 2 are compellable to grant sufficient police protection to the
life and property of the petitioner. The petitioner also seeks
police protection to enjoy and use the road towards his
property.
5. Respondents 3 to 5 entered appearance and
resisted the writ petition. The respondents pointed out that
there is no interim order of Civil Court permitting the petitioner
right to access to the property to the disputed road, in O.S.
No.474/2021.
6. The writ petition has been filed malafide. If the
petitioner has any grievance regarding violation of interim order,
the petitioner has to approach the Munsiff's Court, Manjeri.
The issue involved in the writ petition is a pure civil dispute and
this Court cannot adjudicate the matter in exercise of the
powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, contended
respondents 3 to 5.
7. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner,
the learned Government Pleader representing respondents 1
and 2 and the learned counsel for respondents 3 to 5.
8. It is evident from the pleadings and arguments that
the dispute relates to the right of the petitioner to access his
property in the Kottakkal Village through the Kulamb Road
(Kottur-Mundyan Thara Road). The petitioner has already
approached the Civil Court filing O.S. No.474/2021. The Civil
Court has passed an order on 02.03.2022 directing to maintain
status quo until the measurement of the property with the
assistance of Surveyor. It is an admitted position that the
measurement of property with the assistance of Surveyor has
not taken place pursuant to the directions of the Munsiff's
Court. The dispute involved being a civil dispute and the
grievance of the petitioner is relating to violation of the status
quo order granted purportedly in his favour as per Ext.P4, I am
of the view that against violation of that order, the petitioner has
to approach the Civil Court by appropriate applications. This
Court cannot make a fact adjudication over the dispute in writ
proceedings.
9. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
disputed pathway is the only access to the petitioner's property.
Therefore, even though a civil suit is pending, a writ petition is
maintainable. There is nothing on record to show that the
disputed road is a public road owned either by the Government
or by any Local Self Government Institution. In that view of the
matter, this Court will not be justified in interfering in the matter
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
In the circumstances, the writ petition is dismissed. The
petitioner will be at liberty to approach the Munsiff's Court,
Manjeri for any remedial action. In the meanwhile, if there is
any law and order issue, needless to say, respondents 1 and 2
will be at liberty to take appropriate steps.
Sd/-
N. NAGARESH
JUDGE
sss
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 34945/2022
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN MUNSIFF
COURT, MANJERI. O.S.NO.474/2021 BEFORE
THE MUSIFF COURT, MANJERI.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 15.12.2021
IN I.A.NO.2/2021 IN O.S.NO.474/2021 OF
THE MUNSIFF COURT, MANJERI.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ADVOCATE COMMISSION
REPORT DATED 14.01.2021 IN
I.A.NO.3/2021 IN O.S.NO.474/2021.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 2.3.2022
IN O.S.NO.474/2021.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE ADVOCATE
COMMISSION DATED 30.8.2022 IN
I.A.NO.5/2022 IN O.S.NO.474/2021.
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPIES OF SOME PHOTOS OF THE ROAD
TOWARDS THE PROPERTY OF THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BEFORE
THE 2ND RESPONDENT ON 17.9.2022 WITH
ITS RECEIPT.
