IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM FRIDAY, THE 28TH OCTOBER 2011 / 6TH KARTHIKA 1933 WP(C).No. 2983 of 2011(W) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------------------- K.M.THOMAS PANICKER, AGED 58 YEARS, S/O. K.T.MATHEW PANICKER, KALLARACKAL VEEDU, MULAVANA P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.SIVARAJ RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KUNDARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT - 696 001. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KUNDARA POLICE STATION, KUNDARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT - 696 001. 3. SASIDHARAN @ SASI, AGED 48 YEARS, CHETTIYARAZHIKATHU POIKAYIL MELETHIL VEEDU, PUNNATHADOM, MULAVANA P.O., KUNDARA, KOLLAM DIST- 696 001. 4. BALAKRISHNAN, AGED 56 YEARS, S/O.MATHAI, CHOTHI BHAVANAM, PUNNATHADOM, MULAVANA P.O., KUNDARA, KOLLAM - 696 001. 5. BABU, AGED 45 YEARS, AMAL BHAVANAM, PUNNATHADOM, MULAVANA, KUNDARA, KOLLAM DIST - 696 001. 6. ASOKAN, CHETTIYARAZHIKATHU VEEDU, PUNNATHADAM, MULAVANA P.O., KUNDARA, KOLLAM - 696 002. 7. SATHEESAN, CHETTIYARAZHIKATHU VEEDU, PUNNATHADAM, MULAVANA P.O., KOLLAM - 696 002. R1& R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. DHANESH MATHEW MANJOORAN R3 TO R7 BY ADV. DR.PAULY MATHEW MURICKEN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.2983/2011 W APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBIT: P1: COPY OF COMPLAINT FILED BY PETITIONER BEFORE 2ND RESPONDENT DTD. 11/01/2011. P2: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN O.S.NO.943/2007 OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, KOLLAM. P3: COPY OF THE F.I.R.NO.1640 DTD. 23/09/2010 AGAINST THE RESPONDENTS. P4: COPY OF E.P.NO.99/2010 IN O.S.NO.942/1997 BEFORE THE MUNSIFF COURT, KOLLAM. P5: COPY OF FIR NO.522/2011 REGISTERED BY KUNDARA POLICE AGAINST THE RESPONDENTS. P6: COPY OF THE CMP NO.335/2011 BEFORE THE MAGISTRATE COURT, KOLLAM FILED BY PETITIONER. P7: COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DTD. 21/04/2011 ISSUED BY THE KOLLAM CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE & RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LTD. P8: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DTD. 18/03/2011 BEFORE THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KUNDARA BY THE PETITIONER. P8(A): COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE C.I. OF POLICE, KUNDARA. P9: COPY OF NEWS ITEM APPEARED IN THE NEWSPAPER DAILY DTD. 7/09/1994. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: R4(A): COPY OF THE MASS MEMORANDUM SUBMITTED TO THE HON'BLE MINISTER FOR HARIJAN WELFARE. R4(B): COPY OF THE REPORT DTD. 31/01/2011 OF THE VILLAGE OFFICER, MULAVANA. R4(C): COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD.20/01/2010 ISSUED BY THE KUNDARA GRAMA PANCHAYATH TO THE PETITIONER. /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss PIUS C KURIAKOSE & C.K. ABDUL REHIM, JJ --------------------------------- WP(C) NO. 2983 OF 2011 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 28th day of October, 2011. JUDGMENT C.K. Abdul Rehim, J. This writ petition is filed seeking direction to respondents 1 and 2 to provide adequate and effective police protection to the lives of the petitioner, his family members and workers, with respect to enjoyment of a property situated in survey No. 599/8 of Mulavana village in Kollam district, from the alleged threat, obstructions and intimidation caused by respondents 3 to 7 and their henchmen. 2. From the averments it is evident that, the petitioner had filed a civil suit and obtained a decree against some of the contesting respondents. Ext.P2 judgment was passed granting a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants therein from trespassing into the property in question and from committing any mischief therein. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that he had already moved the Execution court for 2 WP(C) No. 2983/2011 enforcement of the decree and the matter is now pending disposal. Ext.P4 is the copy of E.P. No. 99/2010 filed in this regard. According to the petitioner, with respect to the threat and intimidation caused, the petitioner had submitted Ext.P8 complaint before the first respondent and since no effective steps have been taken, this writ petition is filed. 3. In the counter affidavit filed by respondents 3 to 7, it is contended that, there is exists dispute with respect to right over the property in question and also with respect to right over a pathway allegedly passing through the property. Sri. Pauly Mathew Muricken, learned counsel appearing for respondents 3 to 7 also contended that, the petitioner has not obtained any Building Permit for construction of the compound wall and that any order of police protection if granted from this Court will be permitting the petitioner to construct the compound wall in an illegal manner. 4. Considering the facts and circumstances and also considering the rival contentions raised at the Bar, we are of the opinion that the dispute pertaining to right over the property and with respect to construction of the compound wall are matters 3 WP(C) No. 2983/2011 which are now pending before the Execution Court. The petitioner will be at liberty to seek appropriate relief from the Execution Court for enforcement of the decree of permanent prohibitory injunction by seeking assistance for construction of the compound wall. We are sure that the Execution Court will consider such application if any filed and will pass appropriate orders. It is also open to the petitioner to seek direction for assistance of police if there is any physical obstruction in implementing orders of the Execution court. 5. With respect to the alleged threat and intimidation to the lives of the petitioner, his family members and workers, we direct respondents 1 and 2 to keep vigil over the situation and to ensure that no violence or breach of peace emerging out of the dispute existing between the parties. PIUS C KURIAKOSE JUDGE C.K. ABDUL REHIM JUDGE dnc