JUDGMENT

The petitioner says that he is the owner of a property comprised of in Sy.No.413 of the Mundrothuruthu Panchayat and that he obtained title to the same through an auction conducted by the Dhanalakshmi Bank, Chittumala Branch, consequent to which, Ext.P1 Sale Deed had been executed by the authorised officer of the said Bank in his favour. He says that, when he tried to construct a compound wall around the property, respondents 2 to 4, who are its original owners, obstructed it, thus constraining him to approach the 1st respondent - Station House Officer through Ext.P3 request seeking protection. The petitioner says that since no action was taken by the said Authority on Ext.P3, he has been forced to approach this Court.

2. I have heard Sri.M.R.Sasith Panicker, the learned counsel for the petitioner; Sri.R.S.Kalkura, learned counsel appearing for respondents 2 to 4 and the learned Government Pleader.

3. Sri.R.S.Kalkura, learned counsel appearing for respondents 2 to 4, submitted that the allegations of the petitioner against his clients are wholly without basis and unfounded, and that the third respondent has already approached the Debts Recovery Tribunal (for short, 'Tribunal') for cancellation of the sale, based on which the petitioner is attempting to construct a compound wall. He, however, submitted that his clients have not and will not, in any manner, obstruct the construction using forcible means and that they will only invoke their legal remedies before the competent Forums in terms of law. He then alleged that the attempt of the petitioner is to obtain orders from this Court, so as to frustrate his clients' legitimate remedies before the DRT; and he thus prayed that this Court dismiss this writ petition.

4. The learned Government Pleader – Sri.E.C.Bineesh, appearing for the official respondents, submitted that there are no law and order issues in the area in question and that the Police are keeping a close vigil to ensure that the peace is not breached by any of the parties.

5. When I consider the afore submissions, it is clear that the petitioner claims title over the property in question based on Ext.P1; while respondent No.3 says that the sale, which led to the registration of the said document, is void and that his client has already sought that it be set aside by the Tribunal. However, it is indubitable that until such time as the sale is set aside, the petitioner obtains the right to deal with the property and to enforce his ownership over the same.

6. I am, therefore, of the firm view that respondents 2 to 4 cannot obstruct the construction of the compound wall in the property in question; but that their rights to approach the Tribunal or to invoke their remedies before it cannot be impeded in any manner on account of the pendency of this proceedings or on account of my observations in this judgment.

7. Resultantly, this writ petition is allowed, recording the submissions of Sri.R.S.Kalkura that respondents 2 to 4 will not cause any forcible obstruction against the petitioner enjoying the property in question; however, leaving liberty to them to invoke all the remedies as may be available to them before the competent Authority, including the Tribunal, without being trammeled by the observations herein.

Needless to say, the first respondent will ensure that law and order is maintained in the area in question and that none of the parties are permitted to breach peace in any manner whatsoever.