Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(KER) 1558
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
BASANT BALAJI, J
P. A. MATHEWS – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
WP(C) 37147/2023
JACOB P.ALEX, JOSEPH P.ALEX, AMAL AMIR ALI, MANU SANKAR P.
Property access rights are protected under writ jurisdiction when obstructed unlawfully, emphasizing the court's role in enforcing safety compliance.
Headnote:
Writ - Mandamus - Art. 226 - Summary of Directions and Legal Interpretations
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought protection from local respondents blocking access to their property and requested permission to cut a retaining wall for improved vehicle entry/exit, following official directives for safety compliance.
Finding of the Court:
The court ruled in favor of the petitioner, ordering the removal of obstructions to the newly created gate and emphasizing the need for adequate police protection against interference from opposing respondents.
Issues: Whether the respondents could legally obstruct the entry/exit of the petitioner’s property and whether the court had the authority to issue a writ to protect the petitioner’s rights.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the absence of authorized parking in front of the petitioner's property justified the removal of obstructions, asserting that safety and lawful access took precedence.
Final Decision: The petitioner's plea was granted, ordering the removal of obstructions and ensuring protection.
J U D G M E N T
(Dated this the 14th day of December,2023)
The petitioner approached this Court for the following prayers:- i. Issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other writ, order or direction commanding respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to provide adequate and effective protection, from respondents 8 to 12 and people under them, for carrying out the civil work for cutting the retaining wall as per Exhibit P5 Agreement;
ii. Issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other writ,order or direction commanding respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to prevent respondents 8 to 12 and people under them from blocking entry / exit of vehicles and pedestrians to the property of petitioner situated in Re-Survey No. 371/2 of Adoor Village, including the entry / exit to 'Punthala Shopping Centre', Adoor Tourist Home and the 'Pay and Park facility functioning in the said property, by parking of auto rickshaws on the Northern side of the property of petitioner abutting MC Road;
iii. Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction commanding the respondents 2 and 3 to consider Exhibits P7 representation and take appropriate action on the same in accordance with law within a time limit to be fixed by this Hon'ble Court and to grant sufficient police protection to the life and property of petitioner;
iv. To file the above writ petition after dispensing with the English translation of Exhibits in vernacular;
v. Issue such other appropriate writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem just and fit in the circumstances the case:
2. The petitioner is the title holder in possession of property having an extend of 47 cents of land in Re-Survey No.371/2 of Adoor Village which is situated in southern side of MC Road at KSRTC Junction, Adoor. A multi storeyed commercial Building known as ‘Punthala Shopping Center’ and another building known as ‘Adoor Tourist Home’ are situated in the above mentioned property owned by the petitioner. Apart from the tourist home, the property is used as ‘Pay and Park’ facility for vehicles. There is only a single entry and exit to the road for the area earmarked as pay and park. By Ext.P1, the Station Officer, Fire and Rescue Station, Adoor issued a letter directing the petitioner to provide an additional exit road to the above mentioned ‘Pay and Park’ area for improved fire safety. The 13th respondent also issued a direction to the petitioner to comply the direction in Ext.P1(a).
3. On receipt of Ext.P1 and Ext.P1(a), the petitioner made arrangements for providing an additional exit for vehicles from the property by forming a road from the back side of the parking yard and by installing a gate. However, the concrete structure, constructed by the 5th respondent, on the MC Road having a height of 25 cms was causing obstruction to the entry and exit of the vehicles to the newly provided vehicle exit point.
4. In such circumstances, the petitioner approached the 5th respondent seeking permission to remove the said obstruction and facilitate the movement of entry of vehicle from the property to the MC Road. An inspection was conducted by the Chief Project Examiner and recommended for cutting open the said concrete structure. By Ext.P4, the Asst. Engineer, the Kerala Road Fund Board issued instructions to remit Rs.1,170/- for granting permission to cut open of retaining wall. The petitioner remitted the amount and thereafter a few local autorikshaw drivers and union leaders threatened the petitioner and objected the work of cutting open of the retaining wall.
5. At this point, the petitioner approached this Court and sought protection. On 09.11.2023, an interim order was passed by this Court directing the 3rd respondent to cut open the concrete slab which is in front of new gate sought to be installed. Based on this direction, the slab was cut open.
6. According to the petitioner, immediately after the slab cut open, the respondents installed flags in front of the gate to obstruct the opening of the gate a
