RADHA Vs. THANNEERMUKKOM GRAMA PANCHAYATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONERS are sisters. Relief sought for in this writ petition is for a direction to 4th respondent, the Sub Inspector of Police, Mararikkulam, to provide adequate police protection to the life of the first petitioner and for demolishing the unauthorised construction referred to in Ext.P9. Ext.P9 is a request submitted by the first petitioner before 4th respondent in this regard. The facts in brief is that, the building in question which is situated within the limits of the first respondent Grama Panchayat, having two rooms contained therein in a property belonging to the petitioners, is an unauthorised construction. It is stated that first respondent Panchayat had taken action with respect to the unauthorised construction and an order was issued directing the petitioners to demolish the building. But the building in question is occupied by respondents 2 and 3 by virtue of a lease deed alleged to have been created by them, purported to have been entered with the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners, who is their father.

(2.) LEARNED counsel appearing for respondents 2 and 3 submitted that a civil suit filed by them against threated action of forceful eviction is pending before the Munsiff Court, Cherthala as O.S. No.105/2011 and respondents 2 and 3 had also sought for an interim injunction in the said case. LEARNED counsel for the petitioners points out that the question regarding demolition of the alleged unauthorised construction was the subject matter of an earlier writ petition filed before this court and in Ext.P6 judgment a direction was issued to the first respondent Panchayat to dispose of the matter after affording opportunity to the petitioners as well as to the 2nd respondent. Accordingly, the first respondent Grama Panchayat had taken a decision on the issue and as evidenced from Ext.P7 a provisional order directing demolition of the building was issued. Under such circumstances, contention of the petitioners is that, the respondents 2 and 3 have no manner of right to create any obstruction in the petitioners demolishing the building, in compliance with the directions contained in Ext.P7. On the other hand, contention of respondents 2 and 3 is that, they are in occupation of the building as tenants and they can be evicted only through invoking proper legal procedure.