High CourtsSingle Bench

Muhammed Afsal vs District Police Chief And Ors

High Court Of Kerala · Decided on 15 January 2021 · Citation: (2021) 01 KL CK 0362

HON’BLE JUDGES
Raja Vijayaraghavan V, J
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition (C) No. 33317 Of 2019
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

33 paragraphs · 729 words
1.

The petitioner states that he is the absolute owner in title and possession of property having an extent of 80 cents comprised in various survey

numbers and situated within the limits of Thamarakkulam Village. The petitioner decided to put up a residential building in the said property for which

purpose, he approached the Panchayat and obtained Ext.P1 permit. Based on his application, Ext.P2 development permit has also been issued by the

Panchayat. Since some amount of earth is to be removed, he approached the Department of Mining and Geology and by Ext.P3 pass, the petitioner

was permitted to remove 610 m3 of earth subject to various conditions. When the petitioner commenced work on the property, obstruction was caused

by the party respondents. They were of the view that the petitioner would bring in large vehicles and encroach upon their property which is lying on

either sides of the pathway leading to the property of the petitioner. He contends that the vehicle was obstructed and the respondents have taken an

illegal stand that they would not permit the petitioner to carry out the construction. In the said circumstances, the petitioner approached the 3rd

respondent and lodged a complaint. When no action was taken, he had to approach the 2nd respondent with the very same grievance. Complaining of

inaction, the petitioner is before this Court seeking a direction to the respondents 1 to 3 to afford adequate protection to the life of the petitioner and for

removing red earth from his property in accordance with the permits issued by the local authority as well as the Geologist, without any threat or injury

from the party respondents.

2.

Notice was served to the party respondents. There is no appearance.

3.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that based on the complaints lodged by the party respondents, the permit issued to the

petitioner was cancelled and the same was challenged before this Court. This Court by Ext.P6 judgment, set aside the order and directed the

panchayat to reconsider the same. It is stated that Ext.P7 order was later issued by the Panchayat restoring the construction permit. It is further

stated that the department of Mining and Geology has issued Ext.P8 permit by which, the petitioner has been permitted to remove 610 m3 of ordinary

earth for the purpose of levelling the land. The permit is valid from 18.1.2021 to 22.1.2021. It is stated that the petitioner will have to remove the earth

during the period permitted by the Geologist and prays that necessary directions be issued to the police to grant protection to the petitioner to carry out

the work.

4.

The learned Government Pleader on instructions submitted that the grievance of the local residents is that the petitioner would bring in 15 ton

vehicles to remove the sand and if the same is done, the pathway leading to the property would be destroyed. They also have a grievance that some

damages would be caused to the property lying on either side of the pathway. To prevent such occurrences, the petitioner be directed to bring in

vehicles with a maximum load of less than 7 tons.

5.

I have considered the submissions advanced. I find that the petitioner secured permits from the local authority as well as the Geologist for carrying

out constructions and also for removing the earth. Though notice was served on the party respondents, none appears. From the submissions of the

learned Government Pleader it appears that the apprehension of the local residents is that the petitioner would bring in large vehicles and cause

damage to the pathway and boundary. To safeguard the interest of the nearby residents, necessary directions can be issued to the petitioner to use

vehicles with less than 7 ton capacity to remove the earth. As the petitioner is armed with all permits, there is no justification on the part of the party

respondents in causing any obstruction to the construction. In that view of the matter, this writ petition is disposed of directing the police to afford

adequate protection to the life and property of the petitioner and also to ensure that no illegal obstruction is caused to the construction activities carried

out in terms of Exts.P7 and P8. The petitioner shall use vehicles with a maximum load of upto 7 tons to remove the sand.

This writ petition is disposed of.