Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

According to the respondents, the pathway which is starting from the National Highway ends at Laksham Veedu Colony. It is also the case of the respondents that when there was an attempt to reduce the width of the pathway by constructig a wall along 30 metres at the beginning of the pathway from the Highway, the same was questioned before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Alappuzha and in that case, the Sub Divisional Crl.R.PNO. 2089 of 2010 :-11-:

Magistrate has already found that there is a public pathway having the width of 12 links. Such findings are finally approved by this Court and thereafter, the illegal construction was demolished on 16.10.2004 thereby executing that order. It is subsequently, that the petitioners, whose properties are lying continuously on the eastern side of the property of which the previous proceedings were initiated and covered, obstructed the general public from using the public pathway by installing post and fence and thereby reduced the 12 links width of the public pathway to six links. So, according to the respondents, the present attempt of the petitioners is diametrically against the judgment of this Court in Crl.R.P.No.1062 of 1995. It is also the claim of the respondents that by a common judgment dated 20.8.2007 in Crl.R.P.No.2604 of 2006 and W.P(C) No.34330 of 2005, this Court has confirmed the right of public pathway and the present attempt of the petitioners is to deny the right to enjoy the public pathway, which was already declared by this Court. Crl.R.PNO. 2089 of 2010 :-12-:
indicated earlier, Annexure R3(a) judgment arose out of a dispute connected with the very same pathway, but the property therein lies on the western segment of the very same pathway. Annexure R3 judgment is in Crl.R.P.No.1062 of 1995 wherein also the proceedings originated under Section 133 of Cr.P.C. Therefore, when a conditional order was issued under Section 133, the respondents therein appeared and denied the right of public pathway consequent to which an enquiry under Section 137 was conducted. But, during such enquiry, the Sub Divisional Magistrate found that 12 links width public pathway was in existence. Finally, recognising the public pathway, the Sub Divisional Magistrate issued an order under Section 138 of the Cr.P.C. directing to remove the obstruction. That order was challenged before the Sessions Court and the Sessions Court, setting aside the order issued under Section 138, held that the dispute regarding the width of the pathway must be resolved by civil proceedings. It is against the above order of the Sessions Court, the above revision petition was filed which Crl.R.PNO. 2089 of 2010 :-24-:
tranquility and law and order situation, with the intention to abate the same, wide powers are given to public administrative authorities instead of relegating the aggrieved persons to approach the civil courts because such proceedings are time consuming and the public order or maintenance cannot be timely protected and the public nuisance cannot be abated instantaneously and proper and urgent relief cannot be given to the general public. Therefore, as and when a complaint is received by the authorities, they are bound to abate the public nuisance instantaneously including the obstruction against the right to public pathway of the general public. Thus, while exercising such emergent powers, jurisdiction of such public Administrative Authorities cannot be ousted unless there is a concrete, satisfactory and convincing evidence in support of the denial of public right. Strict interpretation of the term "reliable evidence" is required in view of the above legislative intent. Particularly, it is the demand of the time, since as a money minting business, real estate lobbies are unconcerned Crl.R.PNO. 2089 of 2010 :-36-:
with the Government properties or pubic right and right to public pathway and therefore, such rights of the general public can be preserved only by invoking the statutory remedies and procedures, meant for preventing danger to the public, to preserve the public tranquility and to abate the public nuisance, and thereby, protecting the constitutional rights of the citizens of India enshrined in Articles 19(1)(d),19(1)(e) and Article 21 of the Constitution of India. As discernible from the facts and circumstances involved in the case, the pathway in question is being used by the general public, particularly the weaker section of society, who are residing in the Laksham Veedu Colony, where the pathway ends. Therefore, the jurisdiction of the Public Administrative Authorities like the Sub Divisional Magistrate or Collector, who are bound to protect the constitutional right of the general public, cannot be ousted unless the "reliable evidence" contemplated in Section 137(2) shall be such a strong, reliable, acceptable legal evidence and mere denial in the form of a dispute is not Crl.R.PNO. 2089 of 2010 :-37-: