IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN MONDAY, THE 31ST JANUARY 2011 / 11TH MAGHA 1932 WP(C).No. 3096 of 2011(J) ------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- KAMALAMMA @ KAMALAM,AGED 70 YEARS, D/O.UMAYAL,KUZHIVILA PUTHENVEEDU,ETTIRUTHI, NEAR KULATHUMMAL HSS,KULATHUMMAL VILLAGE, KATTAKKADA,TRIVANDRUM. BY ADV. SRI.NAGARAJ NARAYANAN SRI. SAIJO HASSAN SRI. PRATHAP PILLAI SRI. SEBIN THOMAS SRI. V.K RAFEEK SRI. BINOJ C. AUGUSTINE RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,KATTAKKADA POLICE STATION,KATTAKKADA,TRIVANDRUM 696 572. 2. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KATTAKKADA POLICE STATION, KATTAKKADA, TRIVANDRUM 696 572. 3. UNNI,S/O.SIPPAYAN,KUZHIVILA PUTHENVEEDU, ETTIRUTHI, NEAR KULATHUMMAL HSS, KULATHUMMAL VILLAGE, KATTAKKADA, TRIVANDRUM 696 572. 4. OMANA,W/O.UNNI,KUZHIVILA PUTHENVEEDU, ETTIRUTHI,NEAR KULATHUMMAL HSS, KULATHUMMAL VILLAGE, KATTAKKADA,TRIVANDRUM 696 572. ADV. SRI. T.K VIPINDAS, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rv/ R.BASANT & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. *********************** W.P(C) No.3096 of 2011 ***************************** Dated this the 31st day of January, 2011 ORDER BASANT, J. The petitioner has come to this Court with this petition for issue of directions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to respondents 1 and 2 to afford protection to the petitioner for enjoyment of his property, to put up a boundary wall for his property and to give protection to the life and person of the petitioner. 2. The petitioner is the owner of a parcel of land. He has secured Ext.P1 decree of permanent prohibitory injunction against respondents 3 and 4. That decree restrains them from trespassing into the plaint schedule property altering its boundaries or cutting open a new pathway through the plaint schedule property or committing any mischief therein. According to the petitioner, the respondents are indulging in conduct, which is not permitted or justified by Ext.P1 decree. The petitioner wants to put up a boundary for his property and respondents 3 and 4, contrary to Ext.P1 judgment of the civil court, is obstructing construction of the compound wall. W.P(C) No.3096 of 2011 2 3. We have been taken through Ext.P1. Ext.P1 does not specifically authorise the petitioner to put up a boundary wall. Be that as it may, the grievance of the petitioner is that Ext.P1 decree is being flouted. The remedy of the petitioner lies in moving the court which granted the decree to execute the decree. We cannot leave it to the police to identify the boundary and execute Ext.P1 decree. 4. This Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed, but with the specific observations that the dismissal of this petition will not in any way fetter the rights of the petitioner to move the civil court for due execution of Ext.P1 decree. Inasmuch we do not perceive any threat to the life or the person of the petitioner, we find no merit in the prayer for an order of police protection for the life and person of the petitioner. The dispute is about putting up of the boundary and sans that dispute there is no threat to the life or person of the petitioner. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE) rtr/ W.P(C) No.3096 of 2011 3