✦ High Court of India · 26 Mar 2025

BY AD vs MANOJ RAMASWAMY Ramaswamy

Case Details High Court of India · 26 Mar 2025
Court
High Court of India
Decided
26 Mar 2025
Bench
C S DIAS
Length
1,271 words

GP.SRI.AJITH VISWANATHAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

26.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C)No.30620 of 2023 3 C.S.DIAS,J -------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No. 30620 of 2023 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 26th day of March, 2025 JUDGMENT The writ petition is filed to direct the respondents 2 and 3 to afford adequate police protection to transport materials through the Vallithode - Cheppattukunnu road, a public road included in the asset register of the 4th respondent Panchayat.

2. The 1st petitioner is the wife of the 2nd petitioner. They are the owners of the property covered by Exts.P1 and P1(a) documents. The petitioners have access to their property through road belonging to the 4th respondent Panchayat. When the petitioners attempted to W.P.(C)No.30620 of 2023 4 transport construction materials to their property through the road, the respondents 5 to 8 are obstructing them. Even though the 1st petitioner had submitted a representation before the Statutory Authorities, no action has been taken in the matter. The respondents 5 and 6 had earlier filed a suit for injunction, the same was dismissed by Ext.P6 judgment and confirmed in appeal by the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Sulthanbatheri. Now, the party respondents have filed a second appeal before this Court, with a delay of 530 days. Despite the dismissal of the suit, the party respondents are still obstructing the petitioners from using the public road. Hence, the writ petition.

3. The respondents 5 to 8 have filed a counter affidavit denying the allegations in the writ W.P.(C)No.30620 of 2023 5 petition. They had contended that the petitioners are transporting materials through the mud pathway belonging to them. The petitioners have no legal right to use vehicles through the property of the party respondents. The party respondents had permitted to the petitioners’ predecessors - in - interest to walk through their property. Ext.R8(a) commission report proves this aspect. It is without considering these matters in the proper perspective, the Civil Court has dismissed the suit. The matter is pending consideration before this Court as RSA 489/2023. In the meantime, if the petitioners are permitted to use the road for transportation of materials, it will cause prejudice to the party respondents. Hence, the writ petition may be dismissed. W.P.(C)No.30620 of 2023 6

4. The 4th respondent had filed a statement, inter alia, contending that, the road in question is included in the asset register of the Panchayat. Although, the respondents 5 and 6 had filed a suit, the same has been dismissed, and the decree has been confirmed in A.S.No.23/2019. The respondents 5 and 6 have no legal right to restrain the petitioners from using the road. Hence, the writ petition may be allowed.

5. Heard; the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader, the learned counsel for the 4th respondent Panchayat and the learned counsel for the party respondents.

6. On a perusal of the pleadings and the materials on record, it is undisputed that the party respondents prayer to restrain the petitioner from using the road belonging to the Panchayat has been W.P.(C)No.30620 of 2023 7 rejected by Ext.P6 judgment and the decree has been confirmed by the Appellate Court. It is now reported that the respondents 5 and 6 have filed RSA No.489/2023, which is pending consideration before this Court. However, the second appeal has not been admitted and no interim order has been passed.

7. On going though the statement of the 4th respondent Panchayat, it is evident that the road being used by the petitioners is included in the asset register of the Panchayat. Therefore, the party respondents have no legal right to restrain the petitioners from using the Panchayat road. As long as there is no order/judgment restraining the petitioners from using the Panchayat road, the party respondents cannot prevent the petitioners from using the road. W.P.(C)No.30620 of 2023 8 In the aforesaid circumstances, I allow the writ petition by directing the 3rd respondent to afford adequate police protection to the petitioners to use the road belonging to the 4th respondent Panchayat, without any obstructions being caused by the party respondents. Nonetheless, it is clarified that, this Court has not expressed anything on the merit of the dispute between the parties, which is pending consideration before this Court in the second appeal. Ultimately, the rights of the parties will be subject to the judgment in the second appeal. The writ petition is ordered accordingly. Sd/- C.S.DIAS, JUDGE SCB.26.03.25. W.P.(C)No.30620 of 2023 9 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 30620/2023 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTERED SALE DEED NO.3095/1/21 DATED 29/10/2021 REGISTERED IN THE SUB REGISTRAR OFFICE, KALPETTA Exhibit P1(a) TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT NO.KL12031601179/2023 DATED 3/5/2023 ISSUED BY THE LAND REVENUE DEPARTMENT Exhibit P2 Exhibit P3 Exhibit P4 Exhibit P5 Exhibit P6 Exhibit P7 Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE ASSET REGISTER OF THE MEPPADI GRAMA PANCHAYATH TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 9/3/2022 SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 5/7/2022 SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT ALONG WITH THE COPY OF THE PHOTOS TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 25/4/2023 SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, KALPETTA IN O.S.NO.66/2015 DATED 17/10/2018 TRUE COPY OF THE DISCHARGE SUMMARY DATED 15TH JUNE 2023 ISSUED BY THE CHRISTIAN MEDICAL COLLEGE TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 14/8/2023 SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE W.P.(C)No.30620 of 2023 10 MEPPADI POLICE STATION DATED 14/08/2023 RESPONDENT EXHIBITS Exhibit R8(a) A true copy of the Report submitted by the Advocate Commission in O.S. No. 66/2015 on the files on Munsiff Court, Kalpetta dated 04.12.2017 Exhibit R8(b) A true copy of the Sketch submitted by the Advocate Commission along with Ext.R8(a) Report Exhibit 8(c) A true copy of the plaint registered as O.S. No. 109/2022 on the files of Munsiff Court, Kalpetta PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P10 true copy of the judgment dated 9/7/2024 in Original Suit No.109/2022 in the Court of Munsiff-Magistrate, Kalpetta Exhibit P11 true copy of the photograph four numbers of the public road

GP.SRI.AJITH VISWANATHAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

26.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C)No.30620 of 2023 3 C.S.DIAS,J -------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No. 30620 of 2023 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 26th day of March, 2025 JUDGMENT The writ petition is filed to direct the respondents 2 and 3 to afford adequate police protection to transport materials through the Vallithode - Cheppattukunnu road, a public road included in the asset register of the 4th respondent Panchayat.

2. The 1st petitioner is the wife of the 2nd petitioner. They are the owners of the property covered by Exts.P1 and P1(a) documents. The petitioners have access to their property through road belonging to the 4th respondent Panchayat. When the petitioners attempted to W.P.(C)No.30620 of 2023 4 transport construction materials to their property through the road, the respondents 5 to 8 are obstructing them. Even though the 1st petitioner had submitted a representation before the Statutory Authorities, no action has been taken in the matter. The respondents 5 and 6 had earlier filed a suit for injunction, the same was dismissed by Ext.P6 judgment and confirmed in appeal by the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Sulthanbatheri. Now, the party respondents have filed a second appeal before this Court, with a delay of 530 days. Despite the dismissal of the suit, the party respondents are still obstructing the petitioners from using the public road. Hence, the writ petition.

3. The respondents 5 to 8 have filed a counter affidavit denying the allegations in the writ W.P.(C)No.30620 of 2023 5 petition. They had contended that the petitioners are transporting materials through the mud pathway belonging to them. The petitioners have no legal right to use vehicles through the property of the party respondents. The party respondents had permitted to the petitioners’ predecessors - in - interest to walk through their property. Ext.R8(a) commission report proves this aspect. It is without considering these matters in the proper perspective, the Civil Court has dismissed the suit. The matter is pending consideration before this Court as RSA 489/2023. In the meantime, if the petitioners are permitted to use the road for transportation of materials, it will cause prejudice to the party respondents. Hence, the writ petition may be dismissed. W.P.(C)No.30620 of 2023 6

4. The 4th respondent had filed a statement, inter alia, contending that, the road in question is included in the asset register of the Panchayat. Although, the respondents 5 and 6 had filed a suit, the same has been dismissed, and the decree has been confirmed in A.S.No.23/2019. The respondents 5 and 6 have no legal right to restrain the petitioners from using the road. Hence, the writ petition may be allowed.

5. Heard; the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader, the learned counsel for the 4th respondent Panchayat and the learned counsel for the party respondents.

6. On a perusal of the pleadings and the materials on record, it is undisputed that the party respondents prayer to restrain the petitioner from using the road belonging to the Panchayat has been W.P.(C)No.30620 of 2023 7 rejected by Ext.P6 judgment and the decree has been confirmed by the Appellate Court. It is now reported that the respondents 5 and 6 have filed RSA No.489/2023, which is pending consideration before this Court. However, the second appeal has not been admitted and no interim order has been passed.

7. On going though the statement of the 4th respondent Panchayat, it is evident that the road being used by the petitioners is included in the asset register of the Panchayat. Therefore, the party respondents have no legal right to restrain the petitioners from using the Panchayat road. As long as there is no order/judgment restraining the petitioners from using the Panchayat road, the party respondents cannot prevent the petitioners from using the road. W.P.(C)No.30620 of 2023 8 In the aforesaid circumstances, I allow the writ petition by directing the 3rd respondent to afford adequate police protection to the petitioners to use the road belonging to the 4th respondent Panchayat, without any obstructions being caused by the party respondents. Nonetheless, it is clarified that, this Court has not expressed anything on the merit of the dispute between the parties, which is pending consideration before this Court in the second appeal. Ultimately, the rights of the parties will be subject to the judgment in the second appeal. The writ petition is ordered accordingly. Sd/- C.S.DIAS, JUDGE SCB.26.03.25. W.P.(C)No.30620 of 2023 9 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 30620/2023 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTERED SALE DEED NO.3095/1/21 DATED 29/10/2021 REGISTERED IN THE SUB REGISTRAR OFFICE, KALPETTA Exhibit P1(a) TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT NO.KL12031601179/2023 DATED 3/5/2023 ISSUED BY THE LAND REVENUE DEPARTMENT Exhibit P2 Exhibit P3 Exhibit P4 Exhibit P5 Exhibit P6 Exhibit P7 Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE ASSET REGISTER OF THE MEPPADI GRAMA PANCHAYATH TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 9/3/2022 SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 5/7/2022 SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT ALONG WITH THE COPY OF THE PHOTOS TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 25/4/2023 SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, KALPETTA IN O.S.NO.66/2015 DATED 17/10/2018 TRUE COPY OF THE DISCHARGE SUMMARY DATED 15TH JUNE 2023 ISSUED BY THE CHRISTIAN MEDICAL COLLEGE TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 14/8/2023 SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE W.P.(C)No.30620 of 2023 10 MEPPADI POLICE STATION DATED 14/08/2023 RESPONDENT EXHIBITS Exhibit R8(a) A true copy of the Report submitted by the Advocate Commission in O.S. No. 66/2015 on the files on Munsiff Court, Kalpetta dated 04.12.2017 Exhibit R8(b) A true copy of the Sketch submitted by the Advocate Commission along with Ext.R8(a) Report Exhibit 8(c) A true copy of the plaint registered as O.S. No. 109/2022 on the files of Munsiff Court, Kalpetta PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P10 true copy of the judgment dated 9/7/2024 in Original Suit No.109/2022 in the Court of Munsiff-Magistrate, Kalpetta Exhibit P11 true copy of the photograph four numbers of the public road

Find similar cases Start drafting free
This is the original judgment text as indexed from the source corpus. Always verify against the official court record before relying on it in a filing — you can do so on eCourts or the Supreme Court of India website. ← Search more judgments