N. SASEEDHARAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is before us seeking police protection to enable him to construct wall on the eastern boundary of his property without any obstruction or hindrance from party respondents 4 to 7 and their men.

(2.) The petitioner claims to be the absolute owner in possession of seven cents of land in survey No. 69/1 of Nadakkathazha Amsom which he had allegedly purchased from the legal heirs of one Ananthan who has obtained purchase certificate from Vadakara Land Tribunal for the property. The purchase certificate and the sale deed are Exts.P1 and P2. Party respondents 4 to 7 are the neighbours of the petitioner residing in the northern side of his property. No relief is claimed against the eighth respondent and he is made a party by way of abundant caution.

(3.) As early as in 2012, respondents 4 to 7 attempted to trespass into the property and also cut down some trees therein. Due to timely intervention, the attempt was thwarted. Complaint was filed before the Vadakara Police Station as Ext.P3. In 2015, the petitioner constructed compound wall on all sides of his property, except on the eastern side. When he attempted to do so, respondents 4 to 7 obstructed. Complaint was filed before the Additional Tahsildar as per Ext.P4. The Tahsildar issued repeated notices as Exts.P5 and P6 to the parties concerned to get the property measured through Taluk Surveyor. The party respondents did not appear to cooperate with the measurement by the Taluk Surveyor. A third notice was issued as per Ext.P7 and the property comprised in survey No. 69/1 was measured on 3.8.2015 and peg marks placed. No obstruction was raised by respondents 5 to 7 regarding the measurement. When the petitioner wanted to construct a compound wall in accordance with the peg marks placed, respondents 4 to 7 obstructed. A Police complaint was filed as per Ext.P8, so that the petitioner could complete construction of the compound wall. No assistance was forthcoming. The petitioner and his family continues to bear threats of respondents 4 to 7 and their men. They are also persons wielding considerable political clout. The petitioner himself is employed elsewhere with his family residing alone in the property. Hence, the petitioner was left with no other option but to approach this Court seeking directions to respondents 2 and 3 to afford adequate protection to the petitioner from the threats of party respondents and also enable him to complete construction of the compound wall, in accordance with the plan of the Taluk Surveyor.