Kerala High Court
Jayasri vs State Of Kerala on 31 May, 2024
Author: Devan Ramachandran
Bench: Devan Ramachandran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
FRIDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF MAY 2024 / 10TH JYAISHTA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 19072 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
JAYASRI
AGED 70 YEARS
WIFE OF SRI. SOMAN, RESIDING AT 'SREE' , CHITHARA
VILLAGE, KIZHAKKETHIL, KOLLAM., PIN - 691 559
BY ADV K.P.SANTHI
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, LOCAL SELF
GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM,
PIN - 695 001
2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER
OCHIRA POLICE STATION, KOLLAM, PIN - 690 526
3 STEPHEN KARLOS
BUNGLAVIL VEEDU, THEKKETHIL, EDATHURUTHI AZHEEKAL,
KARUNAGAPALLY, KOLLAM, PIN - 690 518
4 CARMEL CRUZ
, BUNGLAVIL VEEDU, THEKKETHIL, EDATHURUTHI AZHEEKAL,
KARUNAGAPALLY, KOLLAM, PIN - 690518
5 JOHN CRUZ
BUNGLAVIL VEEDU, THEKKETHIL, EDATHURUTHI AZHEEKAL,
KARUNAGAPALLY, KOLLAM, PIN - 690 518
6 SHAILA CRUZ
BUNGLAVIL VEEDU, THEKKETHIL, EDATHURUTHI AZHEEKAL,
KARUNAGAPALLY, KOLLAM, PIN - 690 518
BY ADV JOSEPH GEORGE
OTHER PRESENT:
SMT.REKHA C.NAIR, SR.GP., SRI.JOSEPH GEORGE
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
31.05.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C).No. 19072 of 2024
2
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, J.
= = = = = = = = = = = = =
W.P.(C) No.19072 of 2024
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dated, this the 31st day of May 2024
JUDGMENT
The petitioner says that he has a property,
which has been already been properly measured and
surveyed by the competent Survey Authorities and has
produced Ext.P3 in substantiation. She says that,
she consequently took steps to construct a wall
along her boundary; but that this has been now
obstructed by the party respondents, who appear to
be attempting to trespass into the same, which is
evident from the fact that they are throwing garbage
into it in order to harass her and intimidate her.
2. The petitioner alleges that she is also
being verbally abused and threatened with dire
consequences by the party respondents, if she
continues with construction of the compound wall;
and therefore, that she was forced to approach the
second respondent - Station House Officer, seeking
protection, but which remains unheeded. She says
that she has thus been constrained to approach this
Court through Writ Petition.
3. The afore submissions of Smt.K.P.Santhi -
learned counsel for the petitioner, were however,
vehemently opposed by Sri.Joseph George - learned
counsel for the party respondents, saying his
clients have no objection to this Court granting
protection to the petitioner because, they do not
intend to cause any threats or intimidation to them,
nor have they done so in the past. He added that,
however, under the guise of a non-existing threat,
the petitioner is trying to construct the compound
wall in violation of law and trespassing into a
private pathway, and therefore, that his client
reserves their right to initiate appropriate action
against her for its interdiction. He asserted that
Ext.P3 is not a license for the petitioner to
construct a compound wall in any manner that she
pleases and therefore, that this Writ Petition, to
such extent, is not maintainable.
4. Smt.Rekha.C.Nair, learned Government
Pleader, affirmed that there are civil disputes
between the parties, though litigations do not
appear to be pending. She added that the Police
cannot verify whether the boundary claimed by the
petitioner is accurate and therefore, cannot
supervise the construction of a compound wall,
though they are willing to afford adequate
protection for their lives.
5. I have no doubt that the afore stand of the
Police is the most apposite, because it is not their
objection to allow or assist citizens in making
constructions, since, they will have to invoke such
remedies through the appropriate Courts/ Forum.
6. That said, it is conceded by
Smt.K.P.Shanti, that her client has not yet invoked
any legal remedy, but is relying upon Ext.P3 -
which is the letter issued by the survey authorities
fixing the boundaries of the parties.
7. I am therefore, of the firm view that the
Police cannot be asked to supervise or assist the
construction of the compound wall, though, they must
protect the life of the petitioner effectively
against every threat, so that they can invoke
remedies as are necessary in law.
8. Therefore and in the circumstances, I allow
this Writ Petition and direct the second respondent
to ensure that the lives of the petitioner and her
family members are sufficiently protected against
every threat, either from the party respondents or
otherwise; however, without entering into the merits
of the civil disputes between them in any manner
whatsoever.
As far as the parties are concerned, I leave
them full liberty to invoke and pursue necessary
remedies against each other; but, without taking law
into their own hands, or causing any infraction of
peace. If any violation of this is found by the
Police, necessary actions in terms of law will be
initiated, pursued and competed to the fullest
warrant of law, without reservation.
Sd/-
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, JUDGE
SSG
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 19072/2024
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED
17-4-2023 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
ALAPPAD
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 23-5-2023
OF THE TAHSILDAR, KARUNAGAPILLY
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 8-5-2024 OF
THE TAHSILDAR, KARUNAGAPALLY
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING THE
BASEMENT CONSTRUCTED BY THE RESPONDENTS 3
TO 6
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE SKETCH IN RESPECT OF THE
PROPERTY OF THE PETITIONER ISSUED BY THE
VILLAGE OFFICER, ALAPPAD DATED 21-4-2022
Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED
17-4-2024 SUBMITTED TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT
