P. Somasekharan Pillai vs Sub Inspector Of Police, Adoor, Pathanamthitta District 691523

Anu Sivaraman, J

This writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs :-

“i) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction directing the respondents 1 to 4 to grant adequate police protection to the life of the petitioners and their workers.

ii) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction directing the respondents 1 to 4 to grant adequate police protection to demolish their dilapidated house situated in R.S. No.483/4 of Thuvayur North Village, Adoor, Pathanamthitta District.”

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader as well as the learned counsel appearing for respondents 5 and 6.

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners are the owners in possession of 60 cents of property in Re-survey No.483/4 of Thuvayoor North Village in Kunnathur Taluk, Pathanamthitta District. The properties were set apart to the share of Smt.Sarojini Kunjamma in the partition deed No.8458/1962 and Smt.Sarojini Kunjamma gifted the property to her daughter Meenakumari. It is submitted that the petitioners derived title to the property on the death of the 1st petitioner's wife and the 2nd petitioner's mother, Smt.Meenakumari on 28.11.2020.

After the death of Meenakumari, the 5th respondent, who is her brother, had trespassed into a portion of the property and an injunction suit was filed and Ext.P4 temporary injunction order was passed by the Munsiff Court, Adoor. In the suit, a contention was taken by the 5th respondent that the house is the ancestral property of Sri.Adoor Gopalakrishnan, the renowned film maker, who was the brother of Smt.Sarojini Kunjamma and that the house in the property is to be preserved. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there have been no attempts by respondents 5 or 6 to purchase the property or to preserve the house situated therein. The petitioners intend to construct a residential building in the property and that all attempts are being illegally obstructed by respondents 5 and 6. It is submitted that when an attempt was made to dismantle the old dilapidated house in the property for constructing a residential building, respondents 5 and 6 have obstructed and attacked the petitioners and police complaints filed have not served any purpose. It is, therefore, contended that an order of police protection is liable to be passed to permit the petitioners to use their property without obstruction or hindrance.

A counter affidavit has been placed on record by respondents 5 and 6 contending that steps are being taken to acquire the property and to preserve the building situated therein. Ext.R6(b), which is a communication from the Principal Secretary to Government, Department of Cultural Affairs to the Director, Cultural Affairs to submit a report in the matter is also produced. It is submitted that a report has also been generated in the matter. It is contended that the attempt of the petitioners is to dismantle the old house which should not be permitted.

I have considered the contentions advanced. The petitioners are the owners in possession of the property and the old house situated therein. Respondents 5 and 6 cannot have any right to obstruct the enjoyment of the property by the petitioners. In view of the fact that the petitioners want to construct a residential building in the property, unless there is any compulsory acquisition of the property from the petitioners by recourse to the provisions of applicable statutes providing for the same or a voluntary conveyance of the property for the preservation of the residential building situated therein, respondents 5 and 6 cannot contend that they have any right to obstruct the use of the property by the petitioners in any manner they deem fit. The contention of respondents 5 and 6 is only that the Government has sought a report in the matter. There is no contention that anything further has occurred in the property in question thereafter. In the absence of any manner of right over the property or any acquisition of the property from the petitioners by the State or by any agency including the 6th respondent, the petitioners cannot be obstructed from putting their property to whatever use they choose.

In the above view of the matter, this writ petition is allowed. There will be a direction to respondents 2 and 3 to afford adequate protection to the petitioners for utilising the property belonging to them as covered by Exts.P1 and P2 without any interference from respondents 5 and 6 or anybody claiming through them. In case of any obstruction by respondents 5 and 6, the petitioners may approach the 2nd respondent, who shall afford adequate protection to the lives and properties of the petitioners.

This writ petition is ordered accordingly.