SEALAND BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. SANAL KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, which claims to be a private limited company, incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, has approached this Court seeking directions to be issued to respondents 6 to 8, who are the concerned police officials in charge of the area where the petitioner's property is stated to be situated, alleging that respondents 1, 2 and 5 are not permitting them to construct a compound wall around their property, in terms of Ext. P3 Development Permit issued by the Secretary, Kumabalam Grama Panchayath, the 9th respondent herein.

(2.) We notice, from the allegations and averments contained in the Writ Petition, that the petitioner concedes that their property 'surrounds' the properties of the respondents 1 to 5 and that they are intending to construct a compound wall around theirs, leaving a certain pathway for the use of respondents 1 to 5. Obviously, therefore, what becomes inferentially apparent is that respondents 1 to 5 are obstructing this construction perhaps because they fear that their properties would get enclosed within the proposed compound wall.

(3.) We are afraid that these are not issues into which this Court can delve into or consider affirmatively, going by the well recognized constraints of jurisdiction in dealing with disputation of facts, while this Court acts under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. If the petitioner company requires assistance for the purpose of making construction as per Ext. P3, it will certainly be necessary for them to approach a competent Civil Court by asserting their rights over the property in question and then to make the construction, so that the competent Court can obtain a panoptic view regarding the claims of the petitioner on one side and the rights of the respondents 1 to 5 on the other. This is not something that this Court can do for the reasons that we have already recorded above.