THANKAMMA v. STATE OF KERALA
Case at a glance
Outcome
Dismissed
Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed, without prejudice to the
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
Judgment
BY ADV. SRI.V.K.SUBRAMANIAN SRIM.K.SASEENDRAN RESPONDENTS: ---------------
STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOME, GOVT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
ASST.SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, PUNALUR
SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHAAYAMANGALAM,
UDHUMAN KANNU, ANNEESH MANZILKATTUVAM- UKKU,EDAMULAKKAL VILLAGE,'PATHANAPURAM
GEORGE, S/O.JACOB ANJU BHAVAN, EDAMULAKKAL VILLAGE, PATHANAPURAM TALUK, PUNALUR.
CHANDRASEKHARAN NAIR, S/O.NANU, ANIL BHAVAN, EDAMULAKKAL VILLAGE, PATHANAPURAM TALUK PUNALUR. BY SR.GOVT.PLEADER SHRI BENJAMIN PAUL FOR R1 TO R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & M.C.HARI RANI JJ. ----------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C)No.29223 OF 2008 ----------------------------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 3rd DAY OF OCTOBER, 2008 J U D G M E N T Balakrishnan Nair, J. The petitioner's son who is working in Madhya Pradesh owns 80 cents of land in Edamulackal Village, Pathanapuram Taluk. There is a pathway passing through that property having a width of 5½ feet. The respondents 4 to 6 are taking steps to widen the pathway so that they could take tipper lorries and JCBs through it. Therefore, the petitioner filed Exhibit P1 representation before the 3rd respondent, Sub Inspector of Police requesting him to prevent trespass into her property. It was followed by Exhibit P2 representation before the Assistant Superintendent of Police, Punalur. In that representation, she has prayed for summoning the opposite parties therein who are respondents 4 to 6 and to prevent them from widening the road. In both the representations she seeks protection for her life also. Alleging that the police did not take any action, this Writ Petition is filed.
Operative part
2. The threat to her life emanates only when she physically try to prevent the trespass. Against widening the pathway or trespassing W.P.(C)No.29223 /08 -2- into the property of the petitioner, she or her son, as the case may be, has to move the competent civil court and get appropriate orders against the trespassers. The injunction order, if any, obtained will stand guard for the property during day and night. If it is violated, violators can be prosecuted and the competent civil court can address the police to grant necessary protection to the petitioner to enforce its orders. So, the petitioner can get police assistance through civil court and not directly from this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed, without prejudice to the contentions of the petitioner and her right to move other forums for appropriate reliefs. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE. M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE.
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed, without prejudice to the
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Kerala High Court, on 03 Oct 2008. The bench was K BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, M C HARI RANI.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.