AISHABEEVI Vs. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Briefly put the facts of the case is as follows:

(2.) Aggrieved by the threat and obstruction caused by the 4th respondent and its members, the petitioners filed Ext. P5 complaint before the 3rd respondent seeking police protection to continue the construction work in the above said property and copies of the said complaint have already been submitted to the respondents 1 and 2 also. But the respondents 1 to 3 have not taken any steps to remove the threat and obstruction as prayed for in the compliant. So the petitioners are constrained to stop the work due to fear and threat to life. In the above circumstances, the petitioners filed this Writ Petition, inter alia, seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus or other appropriate order or direction directing the respondents 1 to 3 to afford adequate and effective police protection to the petitioners, supervisors and work men of the petitioners employed in the construction site, comprised in Survey No. 292/6 in Alangad Village in Paravur Taluk in Ernakulam District from unlawful obstruction by the 4th respondent, their men and agents or anybody claiming under them.

(3.) The 4th respondent filed a counter affidavit denying the allegations raised in the compliant but at the same time, challenging the right of the petitioners to make construction in the above said property. The 4th respondent contended that Kerala Karshaka Thozhilali Union is an independent organisation, but not properly represented in the Writ Petition. As per the revenue records, the property in question, where the construction is proposed to be made, is shown as 'Nilam' and it continues to remain in the same classification. The land is agricultural land suitable for paddy cultivation and it was being used for the said purpose, no competent authority has passed any order so far to convert the above said paddy land to garden land or to reclassify the land. Therefore, the land in question cannot be used for any purpose other than agricultural purpose, and thereby Ext. P4 is void and inoperative. Ext. P4 is contrary to Ext. R4(a) general order issued by the District Collector against the conversion of paddy field and water bodies. The petitioners cannot legally enforce Ext. P4. The finding of the Secretary of the Grama Panchayath that reclamation effected much prior to the coming in force of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act 2008, is wrong and misconceived. The petitioners cannot seek police protection to do an illegal activity on the strength of an illegal order.