SURESH V Vs. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has come to this Court with this petition for issue of directions under Art.226 of the Constitution to the 1st respondent to enable the petitioner to construct a compound wall in accordance with Ext.P1 permit secured by him from the local Grama Panchayat. According to the petitioner, there is a pathway on the South of his property. That pathway leads to the houses of various persons. Respondents 2 and 3 are persons owning properties far East of the petitioner's property. According to the petitioner, he is entitled to construct the compound wall in terms of Ext.P1. According to him, the actual width of the Panchayat pathway on the South is only 90 cms. THE Panchayat has asked him to leave 180 cms. But even after leaving 180 cms. when the petitioner is attempting to construct the compound wall, respondents 1 to 3 are obstructing the construction. In fact, the petitioner has a further grievance that they are demolishing a kayyala which is already in existence. It is, in these circumstances, prayed that appropriate directions under Art.226 of the Constitution may be issued.

(2.) WE have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner. The precise dispute is about the width of the pathway on the South of the property of the petitioner. Respondents 2 and 3 are obviously not the persons who alone are using the said pathway. In fact, the submission of the petitioner is that it is a Panchayat pathway. If there be any illegal obstruction to the construction of the pathway, contrary to the terms of Ext.P1, it is certainly incumbent on the petitioner to approach the civil court and seek appropriate directions. Of the many persons who are admittedly using the pathway, an order of police protection cannot be granted only against respondents 2 and 3 to enable the petitioner to construct the compound wall in terms of Ext.P1. WE are of the opinion that it will be abuse of the jurisdiction of this Court under Art.226 of the Constitution to enable the petitioner to walk away with an order of police protection with only respondents 2 and 3 on the party array. At any rate, we are not persuaded to invoke the jurisdiction under Art.226 of the Constitution.