The court affirmed the petitioner's right to construct a wall based on a valid permit, ruling that police protection is warranted against unwarranted obstruction.

JUDGMENT

Petitioner seeks police protection for her life and property and also to enable her to carry out and complete construction of the compound wall of her property situated in Re-survey No.261/11 of Veiloor Village, Thiruvananthapuram, in accordance with the valid permit and site approval, without any obstruction from respondents 3 to 6 or anybody acting under them.

2. Petitioner claims to be the owner of 24.63 Ares of land situated in Re-Survey No.261/11 of Veiloor Village, which was purchased by her as per Sale Deed No.1112/2024. Petitioner's predecessors-in-interest had obtained a valid building permit for the construction of a compound wall. After purchasing the property, the said permit was transferred to the petitioners name. However, when the petitioner started construction of the compound wall based on Ext.P2 building permit, respondents 3 to 6 obstructed the same. Based on the objections the Panchayat issued a stop memo as Ext.P4, which was challenged by the petitioner before the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions. A stay has been obtained against the stop memo.

3. Petitioner contends that both parties have filed a civil suit, which is pending consideration and in the civil suits petitioner has obtained an injunction restraining the defendants therein from constructing any pathway through the petitioner's property, which is stated as the plaint schedule property in the suit. Petitioner also points out that the injunction application filed by respondents 3 and 4 herein as plaintiff in OS No.205/2025 was dismissed by an order dated 28.06.2025, and despite the above, the said respondents are obstructing the construction of the compound wall.

4. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondents 3 to 6, pointing out that since several litigations are pending between the petitioner and respondents 3 to 6, the writ petition seeking police protection itself is not maintainable. It is also averred that there are no materials to indicate that the petitioner is facing any threat to her life or that to the property is under any threat, and hence, the remedy of police protection cannot be resorted to. Respondents also claims that they have an easement right of way through the property of the petitioner, and the same would be defeated if a compound wall is constructed.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the contesting respondents 3 to 6, as well as the learned Government Pleader.

6. The petitioner has obtained a valid permit for the construction of a compound wall. The stop memo issued by the Panchayat has already been stayed by the Tribunal and it is pending consideration. Two civil suits have already been filed between the parties in which the petitioner has obtained an injunction restraining respondents 3 to 6 from constructing any pathway through the plaint property. The injunction application filed by respondents 3 to 6 in the suit filed by them have been dismissed. Taking note of the above circumstances, as long as Ext.P2 building permit is in existence, the petitioner has the right of constructing a compound wall.

7. Since it is quite evident that respondents are obstructing the construction of the compound wall, considering the nature of the objection that has been raised, I am of the view that the petitioner ought to be granted adequate and effective police protection as sought for.

Accordingly, there will be a direction to the 1st respondent to afford adequate and effective police protection to the petitioner for the construction of a compound wall based on Ext.P2 building permit, without any obstruction or interference from respondents 3 to 6 or anybody acting under them. It is clarified that this order will r