NISHA M Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a resident of Vengeri Village in Kozhikode, residing in her house with her daughter and husband. Her husband is working in sales and travels frequently. Hence, most of the time she is alone at home, with her young daughter. She wanted to secure her property by constructing a compound wall and obtained Ext.P1 permit from the Corporation. When she started construction, some of the nearby residents in the locality dissuaded her from constructing the wall without surrendering a portion of the property for widening the public pathway in order to facilitate passage of vehicular traffic, including cars and lorries. On the day she commenced the construction, one Dharmarajan destroyed that portion of the wall. On complaint, the 3rd respondent registered a case against him. Thereafter, on the next day the construction was completed in the presence of the 3rd respondent. On 30-03-2018 at about 2.00 AM the compound wall was totally demolished. Ext.P2 complaint was filed before the 3rd respondent. But no effective step, whatsoever, has been taken so far. Ext.P4 complaint was also filed before the Women's Commission requesting interference. On 01-04-2018, the 5th respondent admonished her to refrain from reconstructing the wall and also threatened her with dire consequences, including thwarting the marriage proposals of her daughter. The petitioner was therefore, compelled to file Ext.P5 complaint before the 2nd respondent-District Collector to interfere and ensure peaceful life to herself and her family. Thereafter, the petitioner completed construction of the compound wall. She also installed a CCTV camera to ensure safety. On 07-04-2018 the party respondents along with some others demolished the compound wall, which can be seen from the video footage recorded in the CCTV camera. Photographs taken from the footage are at Ext.P6 series. Crime No.203/2018 was registered by the 3rd respondent. The FIR of which is Ext.P7. However, the 3rd respondent has not initiated any effective steps to enable the petitioner to carry out and complete the work of the demolished compound wall. The party respondents and their men are constantly posing threats to her and the members of her family. She was constrained to approach this Court for protection to her life and property. It is also submitted that the party respondents have no right to demand surrender of her property for widening the public pathway.

(2.) The learned Senior Government Pleader, on instructions, submits that investigation is being conducted on the basis of Ext.P7 F.I.R. and many of the miscreants have already been identified and action is being taken against them in accordance with law.

(3.) Respondents 4 to 7 have filed a counter-affidavit, in which it is admitted that they are neighbours of the petitioner and that there are about 40 families residing in the locality without a motorable access to their residences. The existing pathway has only a width of four feet. All the residents are owners of small holdings having an extent between 4 to 6 cents. But all of them, except the petitioner, have contributed land to widen the existing pathway to an eight feet road so as to facilitate transporting of vehicles to their residences. The pathway on either side of the petitioner's house has been widened and all the obstructions, including trees, have also been removed from the pathway. A road committee has been formed. The petitioner and her family were actively involved and she had also cut and removed two coconut palms standing in her property and had readily agreed to surrender land free of cost for widening of the road. Later, the petitioner and her neighbour Abraham refused to surrender the land as promised. Abraham has also filed a suit as O.S.No.207/2017 before the Munsiff's Court, Kozhikode against the party respondents and four others. The party respondents believe that he has instigated the petitioner to file this Writ Petition. The residents of the locality failed to convince the petitioner, however hard they tried. The allegation that one Dhamarajan destroyed a portion of the compound wall is not true and he is not even a party to this petition. The allegation that the completed compound wall was demolished on 30-03-2018 is also denied by the party respondents. It is also pointed out that the party respondents believe that the demolition is done by the petitioner herself in order to harass the people in the locality. A case has been falsely registered against seven persons by the 3rd respondent. It is also pointed out that the petitioner, who had promised to surrender the land, has literally back-stabbed those who are involved in the formation of the road.