Ayamu.K v. District Police Chief, Palakkad and Others

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON** **&** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANIL KUMAR** ## **MONDAY ,THE 28TH DAY OF JANUARY 2019 / 8TH MAGHA, 1940** ## **WP(C).No. 41624 of 2018** ## **PETITIONER:** **AYAMU.K AGED 63 YEARS S/O.HAMZA, KOLAKKADAN VEEDU, KUNTHIPUZHA, MANNARKAD P.O., PALAKKAD DISTRICT.** **BY ADV. SRI.P.JAYARAM** ## **RESPONDENTS:** - **1 THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF, PALAKKAD PALAKKAD-678001.** - **2 THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MANNARKAD, PIN-678582.** - **3 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, MANNARKAD POLICE STATION, MANNARKAD PIN-678582.** - **4 K.C.ABDU RAHMAN, S/O.SAIDALAVI, MUNICIPAL COUNCILLOR, WARD NO.1, MANNARKAD MUNICIPALITY, P.O. MANNARKAD PIN678583.** - **5 C.K.AFSAL, MUNICIPAL COUNCILLOR, WARD NO.29, MANNARKAD MUNICIPALITY, P.O.MANNARKAD, PIN-678582.** - **6 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOME AFFAIRS, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695001.** **R4 AND R5 BY ADV. SRI.K.B.ARUNKUMAR** **BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SHRI T.K.** ## **ANANDAKRISHNAN** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28.01.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **WP(C).No. 41624 of 2018** **2** ## **JUDGMENT** ## **P.R. Ramachandra Menon, J.** The petitioner is before this court because of the alleged callous inaction on the part of the police in taking necessary steps to ensure the law and order situation, particularly with regard to the steps being pursued by the private respondents herein to trespass into the property belonging to the petitioner and to widen the existing pathway, detrimental to the rights and interests of the petitioner. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for the respondents 4 and 5 and the learned Sr.Government Pleader, at length. 3. The case of the petitioner is that there was a small ridge near the property of the petitioner which leads to the dwelling place of several nearby inhabitants. There was a demand from such persons including the private respondents to widen the said **WP(C).No. 41624 of 2018** **3** ridge, by providing a reasonable access having a width of 6 feet and it was accordingly, that the petitioner surrendered his property to an extent of 3 feet width from his side and the remaining 3 feet wide property was contributed by the owner on the other side. Thus, a pathway having a width of 6 feet was formed leading to the properties of the neighbours. Later, by passage of time, there was a further demand to take small vehicles to the properties and the petitioner was requested to surrender a further extent from his property. Taking a philanthropic approach, the petitioner surrendered property with a further width of 3 feet so as to form a pathway having width of 9 feet and the pathway was widened accordingly. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is abroad because of his avocation and while so, there was a forceful attempt from the part of the neighbours to widen the pathway further without any consent or concurrence of the petitioner, The existing pathway of 9 feet was widened by **WP(C).No. 41624 of 2018** **4** encroaching into the property of the petitioner and a pathway with a width of 4 metres was formed. Because of various reasons, the petitioner did not raise much hue and cry with regard to the said course and events. It is stated that there is vehicular access through the property as on date. However, without any regard to the rights and liberties of the petitioner, there is a further demand from the part of the private respondents, by forming a 'Samithy', to have the pathway widened further to an extent of 7 metres in width. It is stated that they intend to trespass into the property of the petitioner, which is allegedly at the instance of the two Municipal counsellors by name C.K. Abdul Rahman and C.K. Afsal. Though this was immediately brought to the notice of the police for intervention, no action has been taken and hence the writ petition. 5. The respondents 4 and 5 have filed a counter affidavit stating that there is no merit in the writ petition and seek to have the same dismissed. It is **5** ## **WP(C).No. 41624 of 2018** also pointed out that the said respondents have no connection whatsoever with the 'Samithy' stated as constituted in the locality. The version as given in paragraph 5 is extracted below, for convenience of reference: “It is submitted that a road is in existence to connect National Highway to Njattarakadavu through Nambiyamkunnu, but this road is very congested due to bends/turnings and it is causing traffic congestion frequently. So people of that locality consisting more than 80 members have formed a development Committee named as 'NambiyamkunnuPerimbadari N.H.Link Road Vikasana Samathy'(hereinafter referred to as Samathy for brevity). These respondents are only 2 among 5 patrons of the Samathy. A working Committee consisting of 11 members was also elected in a meeting held on 25.11.2018. It is submitted that several land owners have expressed their willingness to surrender their land for the widening of road as it is beneficial for the general public. **WP(C).No. 41624 of 2018** **6** The said Samathy is proposed carry out the road widening. It was also resolved in the said meeting to reconstruct the boundary wall of persons who have surrendered their land. The true copy of the minutes of the meeting of the 'NambiyamkunnuPerimbadari N.H. Link Road Vikasana Samathy' held on 25.11.2018 is produced herewith and marked as Exhibit R4(a). The writ petitioner has not arrayed the said Samathy as party to this writ petition. On the other hand the petitioner, erroneously and with malafide intention, contended that 'Nambiyamkunnu-Perimbadari Link Road Janakeeya Kootayama' headed by these respondents is carrying out the road widening. These respondents have no connection with the said Janakeeya Kooayama as alleged and have no knowledge about the formation and road widening carried out by the said Janakeeya Kootayama.” ( _sic)_ 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner points out that on one breath the above respondents say that they have no connection with the 'Janakeeya Koottayma'; **WP(C).No. 41624 of 2018** **7** whereas in the very same paragraph they concede that they are 'two' among the 'five' patrons of the said Road Vikasana Samathy, which do not reconcile with each other. ## 7. The learned counsel for the private respondents submits that they have no connection whatsoever with regard to the affairs of the above Samithy; nor are they interested in making any trespass into the property of the petitioner or to widen the pathway which is already in existence. 8. The learned Senior Government Pleader submits that there is no threat to the law and order situation as on date. But, if at all any such occasion arises and if the same is brought to the notice of the police, appropriate remedial action will be taken then and there. 9. In so far as the property belonging to the petitioner is concerned, the private respondents are not expected to trespass or encroach into the property so as to widen the existing pathway. It is also not in **WP(C).No. 41624 of 2018** **8** dispute that the existing pathway was formed because of the substantial contribution from the part of the petitioner by surrendering property to the requisite extent. There is no right for the private respondents or the neighbours or any Samithy to encroach into the property of the petitioner to widen the existing pathway. If there is any attempt in this regard, it will definitely amount to a threat to the rule of law, which requires to be abated by the police. 10. With regard to the submission made by the learned counsel for the respondents that if at all there is any grievance for the petitioner, it is for the petitioner to approach the civil court, the reply of the petitioner is that in the instant case, it is a concerted action of the persons in the locality, whose identity is not fully revealed to the petitioner and there is every chance for 'mob violence'. In such exceptional circumstances, interference by this Court is very much possible, by virtue of the law declared by a Full Bench of this Court in _**Essar Telecom**_ **WP(C).No. 41624 of 2018** **9** ## _**Infrastructure (P) Ltd. vs. Circle Inspector of Police**_ [ **2010 (2) KLT 762 (FB)** ](authored by one of us -PRRM(J)) 11. In the above circumstances, respondents 1 to 3 are directed to afford adequate protection, if any law and order situation arises, whether it be from the part of the private respondents herein or any 'Samithy' or anybody under them, facilitating the petitioner to enjoy the property without any hindrance from anybody in any manner. The writ petition stands disposed of. This will not bar the way of the interested parties in getting the property to be acquired in accordance with law, if at all the pathway is to be widened. ## **Sd/P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE** ## **Sd/- N. ANIL KUMAR, JUDGE** lk **10** ## **WP(C).No. 41624 of 2018** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1** **TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO. 343/1992, SRO, MANNARKAD, WHEREBY PETITIONER AND HIS BROTHERS OBTAINED THE PROPERTY BEARING SY.NO.67/5C WITH EXTENT 90 CENTS SITUATED AT PERIMBADARI MANNARKAD-1, VILLAGE.** **EXHIBIT P2** **TRUE COPY OF TAX RECEIPT DATED 30/10/2018 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER AND OTHERS WITH RESPECT TO THE PROPERTY COVERED BY EXHIBIT P1 DEED FROM MANNARKKAD-I VILLAGE.** **EXHIBIT P3** **TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE DATED 10/12/2018 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER FROM VILLAGE OFFICE, MANNARKAD-I WITH RESPECT TO THE PROPERTY COVERED BY EXT.P1 SALE DEED.** **EXHIBIT P4** **TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 8/12/2018 SUBMITTED BEFORE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MANNARKAD BY THE PETITIONER AND ANOTHER.** **EXHIBIT P5** **TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 8/12/2018 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER FROM THE MANNARKAD POLICE STATION WITH RESPECT TO EXHIBIT P4 COMPLAINT.** **EXHIBIT P6** **TRUE COPY OF THE NEWS PAPER REPORT OF MALAYALA MANORAMA DATED 27/11/2018, PALAKKAD EDITION SHOWING THE PREPARATION AND SPRUCING UP TO BROADEN THE ROAD FROM NAMBIAMKUNNU-PERIMBADARI.** **WP(C).No. 41624 of 2018** **11** **EXHIBIT P7** **PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE TOPOGRAPHY OF THE NAMBIAMKUNNU-PERIMBADARI ROAD AND PETITIONERS PROPERTY.** **RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:** **EXT.R4(a)** **TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE NAMBIYAMKUNNU-PERIMBADARI N.H.LINK ROAD VIKASANA SAMITHY HELD ON 25.11.2018** **/TRUE COPY/** **P.S. TO JUDGE.**