JUDGMENT :

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 first respondent to provide adequate and effective protection to the petitioner from the respondents 4 to 7 and their men, to carry out the works of his compound wall in accordance with the permit and plan approved by the 2nd respondent as per Exhibit P1 and Exhibit P2.

ii. Declare that the respondents 4 to 7 have no right to obstruct the petitioner from constructing his compound wall as per the Exhibit P1 permit and Exhibit P2 plan issued by the 2nd respondent.”

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader as well as the learned counsel appearing for respondents 4 to 7.

3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is the owner of 4.5 Ares of property in Block No.16 in Re-survey No.436/1-4 of Kidangoor Village, Meenachil Taluk, Kottayam District. It is submitted that the Secretary, Kidangoor Grama Panchayat had issued a site approval and building permit to the petitioner for construction of a compound wall for his residential property. It is submitted that Ext.P2 plan was also approved by the Panchayat on 26.4.2022. The petitioner has also produced Ext.P3 title deed of his property having an extent of 4.5 Ares. It is submitted that respondents 4 to 7 who do not share any boundary with the petitioner are illegally obstructing the construction of the compound wall as permitted in Exts.P1 and P2 and that the petitioner's complaints before the police have not evoked any response.

4. A counter affidavit is filed by respondents 4 to 7 contending that there was a compound wall already in existence separating the petitioner's property from the road in front of it and it is after demolishing the same that the petitioner is attempting to construct a new wall encroaching into the Plamoodu-Mundackal public road. It is submitted that the said road was widened after surrender of property by all owners of property on either side of the road. It is submitted that the petitioner had apparently purchased the property only in 2021 and the widening of the road had occurred two decades prior to the petitioner's buying the property. It is submitted that the petitioner's predecessors-in-interest had surrendered the property and the road had, as a matter of fact, been formed as a motorable way nearly 22 years back. It is submitted that the road was developed and tarred using the funds of the Kottayam District Panchayat and the Pampady Block Panchayat on the specific condition that the road surface should have 6 metre width through out. It is submitted that since the petitioner had made attempts to construct a compound wall encroaching into the public road, a mass representation has been filed before the 2nd respondent, which is produced as Ext.R4(a). It is contended that there is no physical obstruction caused by anybody, but the petitioner cannot construct the compound wall on a public road which is already in existence.

5. The 2nd respondent has filed a statement contending that on an application being submitted by the petitioner along with all relevant documents, Exts.P1 and P2 building permit and site plan had been issued to the petitioner for constructing the compound wall. It is submitted that on site inspection, it was found that the width of the Panchayat road in front of the house of the petitioner is 5.8 metres and the building permit was granted. It is submitted that the details of the subject road are entered in the Asset Register in the year 1994 and thereafter, the road was widened and the width of the road was increased upto 6 metres in different places. It is further contended as follows,

“the length of the road is 1 km. Eventhough, the width of the subject road is 4 metres as per the Asset Register, it varies upto 6 metres in different places. The Block Panchayat and District Panchayat had also spent fund for