SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 3742

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J
P.G.SREEKANTH – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 1200 OF 2026



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.M.NARENDRA KUMAR, SMT.HARSHADEV M., SMT.ANKITHA LAKSHMI
For the Respondents: ADV.AMMINIKUTTY K. – SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER

Duty of local authorities and police to protect property rights upon compliance with legal permissions.

Headnote:This writ petition concerns the petitioner's claim of ownership of property and the alleged obstruction to the construction of a compound wall. Respondents 1-4 stated no objection if required permissions are secured. The Court directed respondent 3 to provide necessary protection for construction post obtaining permissions. The final order permitted construction of the wall, contingent on permissions.

Table of Content
1. ownership and construction rights over property. (Para 1 , 2 , 4)
2. absence of opposition from state authorities. (Para 3)
3. court's direction on permission-based construction. (Para 5 , 6)

JUDGMENT

The petitioner claims to be an owner of an extent of

1.42.83 hectares of property situated in Survey No.256/1 as well as another 3.24 Ares in Survey No.257 in Block No.17 in Chirakkadavu Village, Kanjirappally Taluk, Kottayam. The petitioner alleges that he had relinquished his title to 3.24 Ares in Survey No.257 for widening of the road in front of his property Kanjirappally-Manimala Road and thereafter attempted to construct a compound wall. However, respondent No.5 objected to the construction of the compound wall without any basis and hence, he approached the police seeking police protection.

2. According to the learned Government Pleader, respondents 1 to 4 have no objection to the petitioner constructing the compound wall, provided he is in possession of the necessary permission from the Local Authority. It was also submitted by the learned Government Pleader, upon instructions, that petitioner had surrendered only 3 cents out of a total of 8 cents and that the same is required to be demarcated by permanent structures for which the petitioners must obtain permission from the local authorities.

3. Though notice was issued to the 5th respondent, despite receipt of the same, he has not appeared before this Court.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner however, submitted that the permission has already been applied for and that the construction will be commenced only after such permission is obtained.

5. In the light of the above submission, I am of the view that this writ petition can be disposed of with a direction, permitting the petitioner to construct the compound wall after obtaining the necessary permissions from the statutory authorities.

6. Accordingly, there will be a direction to the 3rd respondent to afford adequate and effective protection to the petitioner in the event of any necessity for constructing a compound wall in front of his property situated in Survey No.256/1 of Chirakkadavu Village in Kanjirappally Taluk provided the petitioner is in possession of the necessary licences from the panchayat or other authorities permitting him to construct a compound wall.

Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of.

Sd/-

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top