N. Babu vs Station House Officer Vaikom Police Station,Vaikom.P.O, Pin 686141

ANU SIVARAMAN, J.

This writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:-

“i)Issue a writ of mandamus directing the 1st and 2nd respondents to provide adequate and effective police protection to the life and property of the petitioner and their employees against threat meted out to them by respondents 3 to 5 and their agents and to obstruct the petitioner from constructing the slab fence to secure the ends of justice.”

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader and the learned counsel appearing for respondents 3,4 and 5.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner owns 3.24 Ares of property in Sy No. 81/14/A2 in Thalayazham village, which lies on the western side of Vaikom-Vechoor road. It is submitted that there was a dispute regarding a pathway adjacent to the petitioner's property and the respondents trespassed into the petitioner's property and attempted to construct a new pathway causing damage to the boundary marks. The petitioner filed a suit before the Munsiff Court, Vaikom, and Exhibit P1 judgment was passed, restraining the defendants from cutting open a new pathway by trespassing into the petitioner's property. It is submitted that in between the petitioner's property and the pathway, there was a temporary boundary fence. The petitioner intends to construct a slab fence and he arranged some labourers to construct the same. However, on 12/8/2020 respondents 3 to 5 and their henchmen obstructed the petitioner from constructing the slab fence and the petitioner submitted a compliant before the Vaikom police station. On 6/8/2022, the petitioner again tried to construct the slab fence which was again obstructed. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is entitled to be granted protection for the construction of the slab fence.

A counter affidavit has been placed on record by the respondents 3,4 and 5 . It is contended that there is absolutely no violation of the order of injunction and that the attempt of the petitioner is specifically for effecting the construction of a compound wall encroaching into the public pathway, which is evidently in existence even going by Exhibit P1 decree. It was specifically found in Exhibit P1 that there was a pathway in existence and that no injunction restraining the defendants from using Plaint B schedule pathway can be granted. The decree obtained by the petitioner in Exhibit P1 was only an injunction against the widening of the pathway encroaching into the petitioner's property. It is further submitted that apart from a complaint submitted by the petitioner sometime in the year 2020, no material whatsoever has been produced in support of the contention that there was any obstruction by respondents 3 to 5 or anybody claiming through them. It is contended that without a proper identification of the property and without any permission from the local authority for the construction of a compound wall in the petitioner's premises, the petitioner cannot seek police protection for the questionable activities of the petitioner. In case the petitioner has any contention that the decree of injunction stands violated, it is submitted that the petitioner could have raised the issue before the same court, which has never been attempted.

The learned Government Pleader submits that even though it is contended in the writ petition that there was illegal obstruction to a construction attempted by the petitioner in August 2022, no compliant was raised by the petitioner before the police. It is submitted that the issue apparently is a civil dispute with regard to usage of a pathway and that in the absence of any complaints received by the Station House Officer, no action can be taken in the matter.

Having considered the contentions advanced, I notice that Exhibit P1 judgment itself specifically states that Plaint B schedule pathway is in existence and that the defendants cannot be interdicted from using the same. The injunction is granted was against the widening of the pathway by the defendants encroaching into the property of the petitioner.

A reading of Exhibit P1 would also show that there is apparently a slab fence in existence at least for part of the pathway. The specific case of the respondents is that what is being attempted by the petitioner is a construction of a compound wall encroaching into the pathway which is found to be in existence by the competent civil court in Exhibit P1. No complaint of any nature filed by the petitioner before the police complaining of any obstruction allegedly caused on 6/8/2022 by the party respondents is also on record.

In the above factual situation and in view of the fact that this Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and considering a writ petition seeking grant of police protection cannot be called upon to consider any factual disputes or enter into the area of identification of the properties which is well beyond the scope of the writ petition. It is only when there is a breach of peace or any alleged commission of crime and where police have been alerted in the matter that a prayer for police protection would be maintainable. In the facts and circumstances of the instant case, I am of the opinion that the petitioner has not made out any case for the issuance of the directions as sought for. The writ petition fails and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.

However, it is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the contentions of the parties and that such contentions can be taken up in appropriate proceedings where they will be considered in accordance with law.