Manjula Chellur, C.J.
Petitioner has approached this Court seeking following reliefs way back in 2013:
“i) issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding respondents 1 to 3 to provide adequate police protection to the lives of the petitioner and her family members and workers.
ii) issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding respondents 1 to 3 to give adequate police protection to complete the construction as per Exhibit P2 permit in time.
iii) issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding 1st and 2nd respondents to prevent the respondents 7 to 9 from doing any misdeeds.
iv) to issue such other reliefs as this Honourable Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of this case.”
2. Basically placing reliance on Ext.P2 permit, petitioner has approached this Court contending that, in spite of obtaining a WP(C) No. 17534 of 2013 -:2:-
permit to construct a retaining wall at the boundaries of her property, party respondents, who were not successful before Civil Court in obtaining an injunction order in O.S. No.121 of 2013, are causing obstructions for putting up retaining wall, therefore, respondent Police must protect the workers and the construction carried on by the petitioner.
3. During the pendency of this writ petition, no doubt, there was a direction by earlier Bench directing the Tahsildar to demarcate the properties and file a report. Even with a demarcation of boundaries it is open to the parties to claim or deny right over the property which is a matter to be decided before a civil court.
4. The permit at Ext.P2 expired way back in March, 2014. Even if petitioner were to have renewal of the permit, the fact remains, whether she has a prima facie case to proceed with the construction and whether balance of convenience lies in her favour. This dispute entirely relates to factual situation as the 'Thodu' and property of petitioner has same re-survey number.
WP(C) No. 17534 of 2013 -:3:-
Learned Government Pleader submits, at the time of re-survey certain portions of Thodu were not included in the respective survey numbers, therefore authorities have taken exercise to correct the said position. In the light of said position, there is possibility of encroachment by adjacent land owners as well.
5. As a matter of fact, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the adjacent land owners have put up retaining wall and only when petitioner was trying to put up retaining wall, party respondents, who have high influence with the local political leaders, are trying to create nuisance. In the light of above facts ultimately the issue revolves round the factual situation whether petitioner is constructing retaining wall within the property belonging to her or whether a portion of Thodu is also included in the measurement.
6. Even if respondent Nos.7 to 9 were unsuccessful in obtaining an injunction order against petitioner, it does not preclude the petitioner from obtaining an order of injunction against party respondents or anyone claiming under them from WP(C) No. 17534 of 2013 -:4:-
objecting or obstructing the construction work undertaken by her, if there is valid permit in her favour.
With the above observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of.
Manjula Chellur, Chief Justice.
P.R. Ramachandra Menon, Judge.
ttb/24/06