IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS TUESDAY, THE 9TH MARCH 2010 / 18TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 7250 of 2010(E) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- A.K.HUSAIN, AGED 65 YEARS, S/O.MARAKKAR, AYYAPPANKANDIYIL HOUSE, ADIVARAM.P.O, PUDUPPADI, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. PIN-673 586. BY ADV. SRI.RAFFEEKH.KOTTAKKAL RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOME AFFAIRS, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, THAMARASSERY, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 3. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THAMARASSERY POLICE STATION, THAMARASSERY. 4. P.K.SUKUMARAN, PANANGATUKUNNATH HOUSE, MELEPUTIKAYIL, ADIVARAM.P.O, PUDUPPADI, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 5. P.K.MUHAMMED ALI, PALAKANDI HOUSE, ADIVARAM.P.O, PUDUPPADI, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. R1 TO 3 BY GOVT. PLEADER SHRI. T.K. VIPIN DAS ADV. SRI.K.A.SALIL NARAYANAN FOR R4 & 5 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXTS: EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DT.14.12.09 IN WP(C) 18226/09. EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF PROCEEDINGS OF THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR DT.11.2.2010. EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SEEKING POLICE PROTECTION DT.28.2.2010. EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF NOTICE CIRCULATED BY RESPONDENTS 4 AND 5 ON 4.3.2010. /TRUE COPY/ K. M. JOSEPH & M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C).No. 7250 of 2010 E - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 9th day of March, 2010 JUDGMENT Joseph, J. The petitioner approached this Court for a direction to respondents 1 to 3 to provide adequate police protection to the life and property of the petitioner and his family members. 2. Briefly the case of the petitioner is as follows. Petitioner is residing with his family at Puduppadi Village, Adivaram in Kozhikode district. His house is situated in an extent of 1.70 acres of land. The petitioner had relinquished more than 10 cents of land for the Panchayat road nine years back and that road is still maintained by the Panchayat in good condition. However, the petitioner's property was trespassed W.P.(C).No. 7250 of 2010 2 again and cultivation in more than 10 cents of land was destroyed to provide road access to the property of the 4th respondent. Petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No. 18226 of 2009 and as per Ext.P1 judgment it is directed that the building or any structures belonging to the petitioner shall not be demolished unless there is relinquishment in terms of the Kerala Land Relinquishment Act and Rules or acquisition in terms of the Land Acquisition Act. 3. After that, the District Collector heard the parties and passed Ext.P2 order on 11.2.2010. The Puduppadi Panchayat was directed to acquire land as per the sketch and plan. The allegation is that inspite of that order, respondents 4 and 5 are threatening the petitioner saying that a new road through the property of the petitioner will be constructed. The petitioner filed Ext.P3 complaint before the police seeking police protection. The notice circulated by respondents 4 and 5 on 4.3.2010 is Ext.P4, which would show that a 'march' will be W.P.(C).No. 7250 of 2010 3 conducted to the petitioner's house. Respondents 4 and 5 are political leaders and they will use mob to attach the petitioner and his family, it is submitted. 4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for respondents 4 and 5 as also the learned Government Pleader. 5. Learned counsel for respondents 4 and 5 would submit that they have no objection in granting police protection to the petitioner. According to them, the petitioner had agreed to relinquish his property and part of the road was laid also pursuant to the promise of the petitioner. We record the above submission of the learned counsel for respondents 4 and 5 and direct that in case there is any threat to the life of the petitioner or his property from respondents 4 and 5, respondents 1 to 3 will provide adequate protection for the life and property of the petitioner made mention in the Writ Petition. We however make it clear that this will certainly not stand in the way of the concerned W.P.(C).No. 7250 of 2010 4 authority acquiring any part of the property of the petitioner in accordance with law. 6. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. (K. M. JOSEPH) Judge (M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS) Judge tm