Kerala High Court
Krishnakumari vs The City Police Commissioner on 24 October, 2024
Author: P Gopinath
Bench: P Gopinath
2024:KER:79297
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.
THURSDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2024 / 2ND KARTHIKA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 24037 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
KRISHNAKUMARI,
AGED 50 YEARS,
D/O.GOPINATHA PILLAI, MANGALATHU VEEDU, KUREEPUZHA,
THRIKKADAVOOR VILLAGE, KOLLAM, PIN - 691601.
BY ADVS.
PRATHEESH.P
ANJANA KANNATH
MARIYA JOSE
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE CITY POLICE COMMISSIONER,
MUNDAKKAL, KOLLAM, PIN - 691 001.
2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
ANCHALUMMOODU POLICE STATION, KOLLAM, PIN - 691601.
3 LAIJU,
AGED 42 YEARS,
S/O.VIJAYAN, EEYAPPALLY HOUSE NO.2192, PANTHRANDUMURI
NAGAR, VALATHUNGAL, ERAVIPURAM, KOLLAM, PIN - 691001.
BY SRI.AJITH VISWANATHAN, GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
24.10.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 24037 OF 2024
2
2024:KER:79297
JUDGMENT
The petitioner has approached this Court seeking police
protection. According to the petitioner, the petitioner is in ownership
and possession of 6.60 Ares of property comprised in Re.Sy.No.135/2 in
Block No.2 of Thrikkadavoor Village, which was purchased by the
petitioner by virtue of registered sale deed No.541/2016 of
Anchalummoodu SRO. It is the case of the petitioner that the 3 rd
respondent is attempting to encroach into the property of the petitioner
for the purposes of widening a pathway forcing the petitioner to file
O.S.No.469/2024 before the Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division),
Kollam. It is the case of the petitioner that despite an order of
injunction, the 3rd respondent and his men obstructed the putting up of
a temporary fencing prompting the petitioner to file this writ petition
seeking police protection. Despite the fact that notice was served on the
3rd respondent and there was appearance for the 3 rd respondent also, it
is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is
no appearance for the 3rd respondent for the last several postings.
2. The learned Government Pleader submits that a
reading of the pleadings in the writ petition itself show that the dispute
is purely one of civil nature and if the petitioner has a case that the
WP(C) NO. 24037 OF 2024
2024:KER:79297
injunction is being violated in any manner, it is for the petitioner to
seek appropriate reliefs from the Civil Court. It is also pointed out that
the injunction order only prohibits trespass into the property of the
petitioner and there is no positive order permitting the petitioner to put
up any fencing around the property of the petitioner.
Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the
learned Government Pleader, I am of the view that the learned
Government Pleader is right in contending that even according to the
petitioner, the injunction order only prohibits trespass into the property
of the petitioner and there is no order permitting the petitioner to put
up fencing around her property. Therefore, this writ petition will stand
closed, making it clear that if there is any law and order situation, it will
be open to the petitioner to approach the 2 nd respondent, who shall
ensure that law and order is maintained.
Sd/-
GOPINATH P.
JUDGE
DK
WP(C) NO. 24037 OF 2024
2024:KER:79297
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 24037/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 THE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE
PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT
DATED 29.6.2024
Exhibit P2 THE COPY OF THE ORDER IN IA 1/2024 IN OS
469/2024 DATED 24.6.2024 ON THE FILE OF
PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION),
KOLLAM
