BOBBY DOMINIC Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following reliefs: i) Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the 2nd respondent to give adequate protection to the life and property of the petitioner and her family. ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the 2nd respondent to give adequate police protection to the petitioner to complete the work of the southern boundary wall including the painting of the same.

(2.) Briefly put, the case of the petitioner is as follows: Petitioner is a house wife and her husband is a painting contractor and she is having two daughters. Her husband purchased 5 = cents of property comprised in Sy.No.221/9A of Edappally South Village in her name and constructed a two storied residential building therein and the petitioner along with her family including her father -in -law and mother -in -law started to live in the said house from 26.11.2011 onwards. At the time of purchase itself, the boundary wall on the southern side of her property was in a dilapidated condition. On the southern side of the property, there is a pathway which is exclusively used by respondents 3 to 5 and their families. Even though the petitioner and her husband sought consent from respondents 3 and 4 to renovate the dilapidated boundary wall several times, they did not consent. Finally, since it became highly necessary, two months before, the husband of the petitioner constructed a new boundary wall inside his property close to the old boundary wall. At that time, the corner which joins the boundary wall on the western side and this boundary wall required cement concreting, the husband of the petitioner left that portion for conducting the concrete work later. On 12.10.2012, the husband of the petitioner engaged labourers to do the concrete work on that portion in order to join the corner of the two boundary walls and it was done. The third respondent while returning to her home from her work place, on seeing the concreted portion, took an iron rod from the house of the fifth respondent and with the support of the fifth respondent attempted to break the concreted portion. On seeing this, while the petitioner tried to prevent the third respondent, she attempted to stab the petitioner with the iron rod and due to the timely intervention of the husband of the petitioner, she escaped. Then the third respondent herself summoned the 2nd respondent and the 2nd respondent came to the spot. Since the 2nd respondent realised the real incident happened, he directed the petitioner to lodge a complaint against the third respondent and accordingly the petitioner lodged Ext.P3 complaint against the third respondent. Even on receipt of Ext.P3 complaint as early as on 12.10.2012, the 2nd respondent has not take any action. It is stated that the work of the boundary wall is still pending. Respondents 3 to 5 are threatening the petitioner and her family that they will not allow the petitioner to complete the work of the boundary wall and they also threatened that they will manhandle the petitioner and her children. It is not possible for her husband to be with the petitioner all the time. In such circumstances, petitioner is before us seeking the aforesaid reliefs.

(3.) Counter Affidavit has been filed by respondents 3 to 5. Therein, it is, inter alia, stated as follows: All the allegations contained in the Writ Petition are false and hence denied. The averment that the southern side of the petitioner's property is a pathway which is used by respondents 3 to 5 is misleading one. The southern side of the petitioner's property is the joint property of respondents 3 and 5. It is not a pathway as alleged by the petitioner and the said statement is made with malafide intentions. The further averment that on the southern side of the property of the petitioner, there was a boundary wall which is in a dilapidated condition, is utterly false and hence denied. The boundary wall which was situated on the southern side of the petitioner's property was a strong one and the third respondent had given oral permission to the petitioner's husband to unload the materials in the property of the third respondent for construction of the house of the petitioner and family. The permission was granted on the specific assurance that if any damage is caused to the compound wall of the third respondent, the same shall be repaired or reconstructed at the instance of the petitioner and her husband. It is further stated that after construction of the structure, the petitioner and her husband constructed sunshades protruding to the property of the third respondent and the said construction was violative of the Building Rules. Petitioner has not left sufficient set back prescribed as per the statute and the septic tank also was constructed adjacent to the property of the third respondent in gross violation of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules. Due to the illegal construction of the petitioner and her husband, cracks developed in many areas of the said compound wall. Against that, the third respondent filed Ext.R3(a) complaint before the Corporation of Kochi as evidenced by Ext.R3(b) receipt. Since there is inaction, third respondent filed Ext.R3(c) application under the Right to Information Act before the Corporation. Thereafter, it is stated that the petitioner dismantled the compound wall of the third respondent situated on the southern side of the petitioner's property without any provocation. Thereupon, the fourth respondent made Ext.R3(d) complaint to the Corporation of Kochi as evidenced by Ext.R3(e) receipt. The fourth respondent also lodged a complaint before the 2nd respondent vide Ext.R3(f) receipt. It is their case that the party respondents are being harassed. On 12.10.2012, the husband of the petitioner did some concreting work inside the property of the party respondents on the south -eastern corner of the temporary wall. On seeing the illegal activities of the petitioner and her husband, the third respondent brought a trowbar to remove the cement wastes and plastering wastes from the property of the third respondent and at that time, the petitioner's husband rushed to the third respondent's property and shout abusing words and snatched the trowbar from the hands of the third respondent and has beaten the third respondent with the trowbar, but suddenly the petitioner pulled him back and hence the third respondent escaped from the attack. The third respondent filed Ext.R3(g) complaint vide Ext.R3(h) receipt. There is reference to another complaint filed before the 2nd respondent on the very next day vide Ext.R3(i) receipt. It is stated, thereafter, that the third respondent was admitted in the General Hospital, Ernakulam.