DILEEP Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following reliefs:

(2.) BRIEFLY put, the case of the petitioner is as follows: The petitioner is residing in the address shown in the cause title and is in absolute possession of 14.56 Ares of land in RS.No.416/18 of Chavara Village and 2.84 Ares comprised in RS.No.416/18-2 belongs to the wife of the petitioner. The father of the petitioner had purchased some property belonging to the father of the 4th respondent by paying the consideration of the land to increase the width of the pathway. The sale deed was executed on 26.12.1986. There is encroachment by the 4th respondent into the pathway. Father of the petitioner filed O.S.No.686/1991 for declaration of their right over D schedule road and for consequential injunction. By judgment dated 27.3.1995 and defendants were restrained by a permanent prohibitory injunction from forcefully entering upon D schedule properties and from taking possession of any portion of D schedule properties. They are also restrained from demolishing the fence which are made separating A and B schedule properties with D schedule property and also from causing any hindrance to the ingress and egress of the plaintiffs and also the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs over the D schedule property. Father of the 4th respondent had filed O.S.No.124/2002 before the Munsiff Court, Karunagappally stating that the signature in the sale deed was forged. Thereafter the suit came to be dismissed for default. There is a report by the Finger Print Expert, Trivandrum that the signatures were identical and there is no forgery. The 4th respondent had approached the Revenue Divisional Officer by filing a complaint. The Revenue Divisional Officer had directed the Village Officer to conduct an enquiry and to file a report. The Village Officer after conducting enquiry had filed a report before the Revenue Divisional Officer stating that the petitioner had approached the Assistant Tahsildar, Karunagappally for fixation of boundaries and the Additional Tahsildar by order dated 9.11.2011 had refixed the boundary in which the petitioner has about to construct a compound wall. The 4th respondent given a complaint to the RDO. Ext.P2 is the report of the Chavara Village Officer. The petitioner filed a complaint before the Chief Minister. He also filed Ext.P3 complaint before the 3rd respondent police officer and is before us.