IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH JUNE 2008 / 14TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 14404 of 2008(M) -------------------------- PETITIONERS: ------------ 1. PAULOSE, S/O.LATE THOMAS PAILI, CHEMBARATHY HOUSE, KALLURUTY, NEELESWARAM VILLAGE, KOZHIKODE. 2. SEEROSH THOMAS, S/O.LATE THOMAS PAILI, CHEMBARATHY HOUSE, KALLURUTY, NEELESWARAM VILLAGE, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.SABU GEORGE RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REP.BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MUKKOM POLICE STATION, NEELESWARAM. 3. RAMESAN MASTER, POILINGAL HOUSE, KALLURUTY, NEELESWARAM VILLAGE, KOZHIKODE-673 603. 4. SARAFFUDDIN @ IDDRU, S/O. ABOOBACKER, PUNJARATH HOUSE, KALLURUTY, NEELESWARAN VILLAGE, KOZHIKODE-673 603. 5. RIYAZ, PUNJARATH HOUSE, KALLURUTY, NEELESWARAM VILLAGE, KOZHIKODE-673 603 6. MUJEEB, PUNJARATH HOUSE, KALLURUTY, NEELESWARAM VILLAGE, KOZHIKODE- 673 603. 7. SHAIJU, CHEMBAPLATA HOUSE, KALLURUTY, NEELESWARAM VILLAGE, KOZHIKODE – 673 603. WPC 14404/08 8. MUTHUMANI, PUTHIYOTTIL HOUSE, KALLURUTY, NEELESWARAM VILLAGE, KOZHIKODE- 673 603. 9. SIVARAMAN, CHEMBAPLATA HOUSE, KALLURUTY, NEELESWARAM VILLAGE, KOZHIKODE- 673 603. 10. SHIBU @ SIVADASAN, POILINGAL HOUSE, KALLURUTY, NEELESWARAM VILLAGE, KOZHIKODE-673 603. 11. SANTHOSH, POILINAL HOUSE, KALLURUTHY, NEELESWARAM VILLAGE, KOZHIKODE, 673 603. 12. DIST.SURVEY SUPERINTENDENT, COLLECTORATE, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN FOR R3 TO 11 GOVT. PLEADER SRI.BENJAMIN PAUL. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC 14404/08 APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXTS. EXT.P1 - THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONERS DATED 15.10.2007. EXT.P2 - THE TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 04.12.2007 ISSUED BY THE 12TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P3 - THE TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 09.01.2008 ISSUED BY THE 12TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P4 - THE TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 05.04.2008 ISSUED BY THE 12TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P5 - THE TRUE COPY OF THE FIR NO.243 OF 2008 REGISTERED BY THE MUKKOM POLICE STATION. /TRUE COPY/ K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. ----------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO.14404 OF 2008-M ----------------------------------------- Dated 4th June, 2008. JUDGMENT Balakrishnan Nair, J. The petitioners are brothers. They own 76.6 cents of property in Re- survey No.51/1 of Neeleswaram Village in Kozhikode district. Their property was measured by the Taluk Surveyor and at the boundary fixed by him, the petitioners have constructed a compound wall in 1994, it is submitted. One of the boundaries of the property is a P.W.D road. In October, 2007, the Taluk Surveyor, without any notice to the petitioners, measured the said boundary and planted survey stones inside their property. Feeling aggrieved by the said proceedings of the Taluk Surveyor, the petitioners submit, they have already preferred an appeal before the Superintendent of Survey and Land Records. While so, the respondents 3 to 11 destroyed the compound wall and when the petitioners tried to resist it, they were threatened by the said respondents. So, the first petitioner lodged an information before the police and based on that the police have registered Ext.P5 crime against the party respondents. In the above background, this writ petition is filed, seeking necessary protection to the life and property of WPC 14404/08 2 the petitioners. 2. We heard the learned counsel for the party respondents and also the learned Government Pleader for the official respondents. The above dispute is a civil dispute regarding the boundary of the property of the petitioners. If the petitioners are aggrieved by the survey conducted by the Taluk Surveyor and the fixation of the survey stones, their remedy lies before the civil court. The decision of the Surveyor is always subject to the orders of the civil court. The police cannot interfere in this dispute. The petitioners may pursue the statutory remedy invoked by them. The police have no role to play in this dispute. So, the prayer for police protection is declined. But, if any cognizable offence is committed, the power of the police to register a crime and investigate the same will not be affected by this judgment. Subject to the above observation, the Writ Petition is dismissed. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE. M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE. Nm/