N.REJENDRAN @ RAJAN Vs. THE STATE POLICE CHIEF

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner claims that he is the absolute owner in possession and enjoyment of 0.81 Ares of property comprised in Resurvey No.423/14 in Block No.34 of Anchal Village, which he had purchased by virtue of Sale Deed No.1046/2002. Exhibit P1 is the copy of the Basic Tax Receipt with respect to the said property. It is stated that the petitioner had constructed a three storied building in the said property and that he is conducting furniture business in the said building, under the name and style, 'Arunima Furniture', on obtaining due licenses and registrations. It is the case of the petitioner that the daughter of the 5th respondent is the owner of a neighbouring property situated on the eastern side of the petitioner's building. According to the petitioner, the 5th respondent demanded for purchasing property of the petitioner for a meager sum, with a view to enable daughter of the 5th respondent to construct a shopping complex therein. It is alleged that, since the petitioner is not amenable to the demand of the 5th respondent, the 5th respondent was threatening the petitioner and his wife on several occasions. It is alleged specifically that, on 22.06.2016 at about 1.30 p.m. the 5th respondent along with some others have trespassed into the shop building of the petitioner and threatened him demanding to vacate the building and also demanding to sell the property to the 5th respondent. According to the petitioner, even though Exhibit P5 complaint was submitted before the 4th respondent, no action was taken to register any case or to investigate the same. It is averred that there is constant threat to the life of the petitioner and to his family members. Therefore the petitioner is seeking direction to respondents 1 to 4 to afford adequate and effective police protection to the life of the petitioner and his family members and to his property and also to the smooth conduct of business in the shop room in question.

(2.) The learned Government Pleader, on instructions from respondents 3 and 4 submitted that there exists boundary dispute between the petitioner and the 5th respondent. It is further submitted that, with respect to the incident alleged to have taken place on 22.06.2016, Exhibit P5 complaint was submitted only on 28.06.2016, and on enquiry made by the 4th respondent it was revealed that no such incident had occurred.

(3.) The 5th respondent had filed counter affidavit contending that, the property belonging to the petitioner was purchased from the 5th respondent and that there exists balance extent of 15 cents, which the 5th respondent had assigned in favour of his daughter, who is now residing in New Zealand along with her husband. The 5th respondent had emphatically denied the allegation that he made any demand for purchase of the petitioner's property. On the other hand, allegation of the 5th respondent is that petitioner had constructed the building in violation of the provisions of the Building Rules, in a manner abutting to the building belonging to the 5th respondent. According to the 5th respondent, he is residing in a far away place from the property and that he was not aware about such construction. However, he has not raised any issue with respect to the illegal constructions made, based on assurance given by the petitioner that he would remove the unauthorized constructions. But, it is the specific allegation of the 5th respondent that the petitioner is again attempting certain new constructions by encroaching into the property belonging to his daughter. When the 5th respondent came to know about such attempts, he approached the petitioner and requested to remove the said construction. Even though the petitioner agreed to do the same, despite repeated requests no action was taken. Therefore, the 5th respondent submitted a complaint to the Anchal Grama Panchayath seeking intervention. The Panchayath authorities conducted an inspection. They became convinced about encroachments made by the petitioner into the property of the 5th respondent's daughter as well as to the drain constructed by the PWD. A show cause notice was issued to the petitioner, as evidenced from Exhibit R5(a). Under the above mentioned circumstances, it is contended that, concealing the real facts the petitioner has approached this Court even without impleading the Grama Panchayath. According to the 5th respondent, based on Exhibit P5 complaint the police authorities have called the 5th respondent and made enquiries about the alleged encroachments. It is stated that the police authorities also made an inspection in the property and became convinced of the illegal encroachments. It is on the basis of the satisfaction arrived by the police authorities that the complaint is totally false, that no further action was taken. According to the 5th respondent, he is a person aged 65 years and he don't have any relatives or friends at the place where the property is situated. Therefore, the allegation of criminal intimidation from the side of the 5th respondent is a totally false story created by the petitioner, and it is specifically denied. According to the 5th respondent, the petitioner has approached this Court with unclean hands suppressing material facts and there exists no cause of action to order any police protection.