High CourtsSingle Bench(2021) 01 KL CK 0362

Muhammed Afsal vs District Police Chief And Ors

High Court Of Kerala · Decided on 15 January 2021

HON’BLE JUDGES
Raja Vijayaraghavan V, J
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition (C) No. 33317 Of 2019

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

14 paragraphs · 729 words
1.

The petitioner states that he is the absolute owner in title and possession of property having an extent of 80 cents comprised in various survey

numbers and situated within the limits of Thamarakkulam Village. The petitioner decided to put up a residential building in the said property for which

purpose, he approached the Panchayat and obtained Ext.P1 permit. Based on his application, Ext.P2 development permit has also been issued by the

Panchayat. Since some amount of earth is to be removed, he approached the Department of Mining and Geology and by Ext.P3 pass, the petitioner was permitted to remove 610 m3 of earth subject to various conditions. When the petitioner commenced work on the property, obstruction was caused by the party respondents. They were of the view that the petitioner would bring in large vehicles and encroach upon their property which is lying on either sides of the pathway leading to the property of the petitioner. He contends that the vehicle was obstructed and the respondents have taken an illegal stand that they would not permit the petitioner to carry out the construction. In the said circumstances, the petitioner approached the 3rd respondent and lodged a complaint. When no action was taken, he had to approach the 2nd respondent with the very same grievance. Complaining of

inaction, the petitioner is before this Court seeking a direction to the respondents 1 to 3 to afford adequate protection to the life of the petitioner and for removing red earth from his property in accordance with the permits issued by the local authority as well as the Geologist, without any threat or injury from the party respondents.

2.

Notice was served to the party respondents. There is no appearance.

3.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that based on the complaints lodged by the party respondents, the permit issued to the

petitioner was cancelled and the same was challenged before this Court. This Court by Ext.P6 judgment, set aside the order and directed the panchayat to reconsider the same. It is stated that Ext.P7 order was later issued by the Panchayat restoring the construction permit. It is further stated that the department of Mining and Geology has issued Ext.P8 permit by which, the petitioner has been permitted to remove 610 m3 of ordinary earth for the purpose of levelling the land. The permit is valid from 18.1.2021 to 22.1.2021. It is stated that the petitioner will have to remove the earth during the period permitted by the Geologist and prays that necessary directions be issued to the police to grant protection to the petitioner to carry out

the work.

4.

The learned Government Pleader on instructions submitted that the grievance of the local residents is that the petitioner would bring in 15 ton

vehicles to remove the sand and if the same is done, the pathway leading to the property would be destroyed. They also have a grievance that some damages would be caused to the property lying on either side of the pathway. To prevent such occurrences, the petitioner be directed to bring in vehicles with a maximum load of less than 7 tons.

5.

I have considered the submissions advanced. I find that the petitioner secured permits from the local authority as well as the Geologist for carrying

out constructions and also for removing the earth. Though notice was served on the party respondents, none appears. From the submissions of the learned Government Pleader it appears that the apprehension of the local residents is that the petitioner would bring in large vehicles and cause damage to the pathway and boundary. To safeguard the interest of the nearby residents, necessary directions can be issued to the petitioner to use vehicles with less than 7 ton capacity to remove the earth. As the petitioner is armed with all permits, there is no justification on the part of the party respondents in causing any obstruction to the construction. In that view of the matter, this writ petition is disposed of directing the police to afford adequate protection to the life and property of the petitioner and also to ensure that no illegal obstruction is caused to the construction activities carried out in terms of Exts.P7 and P8. The petitioner shall use vehicles with a maximum load of upto 7 tons to remove the sand.

This writ petition is disposed of.