IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH JANUARY 2011 / 22ND POUSHA 1932 WP(C).No. 22064 of 2010(G) ------------------------ PETITIONER : -------------------- FATHIMA BEEVI, K.S.BUILDINGS, PATHANAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.T.M.ABDUL LATHEEF RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PATHANAPURAM-689 695. 2. HASEENA, RAFI MANZIL, KALLUM KADAVU, PATHANAPURAM-689 695. 3. SALEEM, RAFI MANZIL, KALLUM KADAVU, PATHANAPURAM-689 695. 4. PATHANAPURAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PATHANAPURAM.P.O., KOLLAM-689 695. R1 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. T.K. VIPINDAS R2 & R3 BY ADVS. SRI.MOHAN JACOB GEORGE SMT.P.V.PARVATHI SMT.REENA THOMAS SRI.L.RAM MOHAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Mn ...2/- WP(C).No. 22064 of 2010(G) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 : COPY OF THE SKETCH. EXT.P2 : COPY OF THE LETTER NO. A3-5209/10 DATED 11-5-2010 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P3 : COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 25-5-2010 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE FIRST RESPONDENT. EXT.P4 : COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 5-6-2010 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: EXT.R3(a) : COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S.NO. 270/2010 OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, PUNALUR. EXT.R3(b) : COPY OF THE ORDER OF INJUNCTION PASSED BY THE MUNSIFF'S COURT IN I.A. 1475/2010 IN O.S. NO. 270/2010. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE Mn R.BASANT & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------- WPC No.22064 of 2010 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 12th January, 2011 JUDGMENT Basant, J. The petitioner has come to this Court with this petition for issue of directions under Article 226 of the Constitution to respondent No.1 obliging him to afford police protection to the petitioner for his life/person and his property. 2. The petitioner claims to be the owner in possession of 45 cents of land. According to the petitioner, there is a pathway belonging to him exclusively which leads to his house. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 are adjacent property owners. According to the petitioners, R2 and R3 have disposed of all other items which they earlier owned and now have only 2.5 cents of land in their possession. 2 and R3 have applied for permission to build a residential building in that property. As boundary of their property, they had shown the Panchayat pathway on the one side and on the other a pathway leading to the house of the wpc No.22064/2010 2 petitioner. According to the petitioner, respondents 2 and 3 do not have any right over the pathway leading to their house. They are unnecessarily and unjustifiably raising objections against the exercise of rights by the petitioner over the private pathway which leads to his house which according to the petitioner is his exclusive property. Petitioner's attempt to enjoy the property is being interfered with and there is a consequent threat to his person/life. In these circumstances, appropriate directions may be issued, it is prayed. 3. Respondents 2 and 3 have entered appearance through counsel. The learned counsel for respondents 2 and 3 submits that the pathway in question is not the exclusive property of the petitioner, but respondents 2 and 3 in turn have a right to use that pathway. There was unjustifiable and illegal obstructions on the part of the petitioner against the use of the pathway and exercise of rights over the pathway by respondents 2 and 3. The petitioner has come to this Court seeking directions for police protection in a transparent attempt to deny the rights of respondents 2 and 3 over the pathway in wpc No.22064/2010 3 question. Sensing the illegal intentions of the petitioner, respondents 2 and 3 have already approached the Civil Court asserting their rights over the pathway in question. The civil court is already seized of the matter and Ext.R3 (b) order of injunction has already been passed. Parties must now await the decision of the civil court. This court cannot in exercise of the powers under Article 226 attempt to resolve a private civil dispute relating to the pathway between the contestants. There is no threat to the life of the petitioner. There is disagreement and disputes about the denial of rights of respondents 2 and 3 over the pathway. Independent of that, there is no threat, dispute or risk. In these circumstances, this petition may be dismissed, prays the learned counsel for respondents 2 and 3. 4. The learned Government Pleader submits that in the perception of the first petitioner, there is only a civil dispute and the parties have already approached the civil court for redressal of their grievance. In these circumstances, police do not intend to intervene the dispute between the petitioner and respondents 2 and 3. wpc No.22064/2010 4 They may be directed to get their disputes settled in accordance with law in the proceedings initiated before the civil court. No directions for protection may be issued. The learned Government Pleader points out that independent of the dispute regarding the way, there is no perception of any threat or risk of life and person of either contestants. 5. We have considered all the relevant circumstances. We are satisfied that this is not a fit case where the jurisdiction under Article 226 can need or deserves to be issued. This writ petition is in these circumstances dismissed. We make it clear that the dismissal will not prejudice the rights of the petitioner to take appropriate steps before the civil court or before the fourth respondent in accordance with law. R.BASANT JUDGE K.SURENDRA MOHAN JUDGE css/