P.V. Balan v. The Circle Inspector Of Police
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE FRIDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2013/6TH POUSHA, 1935 WP(C).No. 30875 of 2013 (H) ---------------------------- PETITIONER(S):
--------------------------
1. P.V. BALAN AGED 55 YEARS S/O. K.VELU, PERASHANNUR, KUTTIPURAM VILLAGE TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-679571 PRESENTLY RESIDING AT B-39, NANAKPURA SOUTH MOTI BAGH-2, NEW DELHI-110021 REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY BIBI S.KAIMAL.
2. BIBI S.KAIMAL AGED 41 YEARS S/O. N.S.KAIMAL, "ANNAPOORNA", KAIKKAT THURUTH KOTHAD P.O., KADAMAKKUDY VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.SRI.T.K.VIPINDAS SRI.K.V.SREE VINAYAKAN SRI.K.M.MUHAMMED HUSSAIN RESPONDENT(S):
----------------------------
1. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE HILL PALACE, THRIPUNITHURA, PIN-682301.
2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE HILL PALACE, THRIPUNITHURA, PIN-682301.
BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.A.RANJITH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27-12-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No. 30875 of 2013 (H) ---------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ------------------------------------- P1:-TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTERED SALE DEED NO 436/2013 DTD 11/2/2013 OF SRO THRIPUNIHURA P2:-TRUE COPY OF BASIC TAX RECEIPT DTD 27/3/2013 P3:-TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT DTD 13/11/2013 ISSUED BY THE THRIPUNITHURA MUNICIPALITY P4:-TRUE COPY OF THE PLAN APPROVED BY THE THRIPUNITHURA MUNICIPALITY PERTAINING TO PERMIT NO PWH-BA-429/13-14 P5:-TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO 4/2012 ISSUED BY THE STATE POLICE CHIEF RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS NIL --------------------------------------- //True Copy// PA TO JUDGE Rp
ANTONY DOMINIC & A.M.SHAFFIQUE, JJ.
============================ W.P.(C) No. 30875 OF 2013 ======================= Dated this the 27th day of December, 2013
J U D G M E N T
Antony Dominic, J.
The first petitioner claims to be the owner of the property covered by Ext.P1 title deed and the second petitioner is stated to be the person, who is looking after the property, on behalf of the first petitioner.
2.
In this writ petition, what is complained of by them is that the respondents have prevented them from completing the construction of a compound wall around the property. It is stated that such a prohibitory direction has been issued despite the fact that the work was started after completing all legal formalities and that too in the absence of any civil dispute between any one. 3.
On the filing of the writ petition, learned Government Pleader was directed to obtain instructions in the matter. Accordingly instructions have been obtained and it is stated by the learned Government Pleader that respondents have not prevented the petitioners from continuing the construction activities of the compound wall.
W.P.(C) No.30875/13 : 2 :
4.
As already stated, what led the petitioners to file this writ petition is the allegation made by them that the respondents have prevented them from completing construction of the compound wall around the property covered by Ext.P1. This allegation has been denied by the learned Government Pleader who has obtained instructions in the matter.
In view of the above, this wit petition is closed recording the submission of the learned Government Pleader to the above effect and directing that the petitioners will be at liberty to continue the construction of the compound wall subject to complying with the statutory formalities in that behalf. Sd/- ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Sd/- A.M.SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE Rp //True Copy// PA TO JUDGE