G.VIJAYAN PILLAI Vs. DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners 1 and 2 are senior citizens and the 3rd respondent is their daughter. The petitioners allege that respondents 3 to 9 are anti-social elements indulging in unlawful activities and are attempting to trespass into their property as evidenced by Exst.P2 photographs. R.S.A.No.555/2017 is pending before the High Court regarding the ownership of the property held by the petitioners, against the Government and its officials, in which, Ext.P1 Interim order has been passed to maintain status quo. The respondents 2 and 1 were approached by the petitioners with Exts.P3 and P4 complaints, in vain. Due to this inaction on the part of the police authorities, Ext.P5 representation was made to the District Collector. Encouraged by the inertia on the part of respondents 1 and 2, the party respondents are continuing their act of violence and destruction of the property. Ultimately, Ext.P6 FIR was registered at Pooyappally Police Station against some of the respondents. But still, the investigation was moving at snail's pace and therefore, Ext.P7 complaint was filed before the 1st respondent. Petitioners moved the Munsiff's Court, Kottarakkara, for damages and injunction and obtained Ext.P8 order 0f interim injunction and Ext.P9 commission report, was also obtained. But the party respondents are unmoved and the threat and violence continues unabated. The petitioners had no other option but to seek a writ of mandamus for police protection against respondents 3 to 9.

(2.) Respondents 3 to 9 appeared through counsel and filed counter-affidavit claiming that there is a pathway along the western side of petitioners' property, which is a Government 'puramboke' land used by respondents 3 to 9 and others regularly for ingress and egress to their properties. The intention of the petitioners is only to have that pathway blocked. A case for encroachment has been registered against the petitioners by the Panchayat authorities against which, O.S.106/2009 was filed and, the decision went against the petitioners, both before the trial court and in appeal before the District Court. Respondents 3 to 5 too have filed O.S.No.446/2017 before the Munsiff's Court, Kottarakkara for an injunction and obtained Ext.R6(a) Order of interim injunction restraining the petitioners from obstructing the public pathway. The Mahazar prepared by the Commissioner in that suit is Ext.R6(b), which would clearly indicate the mala fide intention of the petitioners. They constructed a pond in the pathway to cause obstruction and Ext.R6(c) complaint was filed against them before the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Kottarakkara. That apart, the first petitioner had allegedly outraged the modesty of a lady, while using the pathway, and she approached the police against the 1st petitioner, which is Ext.R6(d) complaint. Ext.R6(e) petition was also filed against the petitioners before the Chief Minister, which was forwarded to the District Police Chief. In order to counter the litigation filed by the party respondents, the petitioners filed O.S.No.143/2006 before the Munsiff's Court, Kottarakkara, seeking an injunction to restrain construction of a road through their property, a copy of the plaint is Ext.R6(f).

(3.) The party respondents are not in any way taking law into their hands or posing any threat to the petitioners as alleged. On the other hand, it is the intention of the petitioners to harass the party respondents by dragging them into unnecessary litigations. There is absolutely no merit in the petition filed by them.