IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST DECEMBER 2010 / 10TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 35641 of 2010(E) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- STEEPHEN,S/O.SAMIAN MIRADA,AGED 77, NALUTHUNDATHIL PUTHEN VEEDU,KOTTAPPURAM CHERRY, KOTTAPPURAM VILLAGE, PARAVOOR P.O., KOLLAM 691 301. BY ADV. SRI.G.BHAGAVAT SINGH RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,PARAVOOR POLICE STATION,PARAVOOR P.O., KOLLAM 691 301. 2. ANIL KUMAR,PARANKIMAMVILA VEEDU, KOTTAPPURAM VILLAGE,PARAVOOR P.O., KOLLAM 691 301. 3. SREEJA,W/O.ANIL KUMAR,PARANKIMAMVILA VEEDU,KOTTAPPURAM VILLAGE,PARAVOOR P.O., KOLLAM 691 301. 4. PRAKASH,PARANKIMAMVILA VEEDU, KOTTAPPURAM VILLAGE,PARAVOOR P.O., KOLLAM 691 301. 5. SUNITHA,PARANKIMAMVILA VEEDU, KOTTAPPURAM VILLAGE,PARAVOOR P.O., KOLLAM 691 301. 6. SAROJINI,PARANKIMAMVILA VEEDU, KOTTAPPURAM VILLAGE,PARAVOOR P.O., KOLLAM 691 301. 7. HILAL BABU,PARANKIMAMVILA VEEDU, KOTTAPPURAM VILLAGE,PARAVOOR P.O., KOLLAM 691 301. 8. BEENA,W/O.HILAL BABU,PARANKIMAMVILA VEEDU, KOTTAPPURAM VILLAGE,PARAVOOR P.O., KOLLAM 691 301. R1 BY GOVT.PLEADER SRI.T.K.VIPIN DAS THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs/ K.M.JOSEPH & M.C. HARI RANI,JJ ============================== W.P.(C) NO. 35641 OF 2010 ============================ Dated this the 1st day of December, 2010 JUDGMENT K.M. Joseph, J. The petitioner has approached this court seeking the following reliefs:- “i) direct the 1st respondent to provide effective and adequate police protection to the life and properties of the petitioner and his family members after restraining the respondents 2 to 8 from interfering with the use of the pathway by the petitioner and his family members; ii)direct the 1st respondent to initiate stringent action against the respondents 2 to 8 and their men in the event of any violation of Exts.P3 and P4 orders”. 2. The case of the petitioner in brief is as follows. Petitioner is a senior citizen aged 77 years. He owned 6.30 ares of land in Wpc 35641/2010 2 Kottappuram Village. On the southern side of the property of the petitioner, there is a pathway which is used by general public for more than a century. In the absence of the petitioner, somebody demolished the southern compound wall of the petitioner's property. When he started the reconstruction of the same, the respondents obstructed the same and also declared that if it is reconstructed, it will be demolished by them. Petitioner preferred Ext.P1 before the first respondent. Petitioner filed O.S.45 of 2010 before the Munsiff Magistrate Court, Paravoor. Ext.P3 order was obtained. After obtaining a commission report, petitioner has further obtained Ext.P4. Now, it is alleged that in spite of the orders of status quo, respondents are continuing illegal acts by forcibly preventing petitioner and his wife in using the pathway. Petitioner filed Ext.P5 before the first respondent requesting appropriate action. It is also stated that respondents 5 and 8 abused and attacked petitioner's wife when she was walking through the pathway on 8.10.2010. They reported to the police, but no action was taken. Several incidents occurred. The wife of the petitioner filed Ext.P6. 3. We heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader. We have perused the prayer in Exts.P5 and P7 representations. Essentially it is to enforce the property rights, petitioner has already obtained vide Ext.P4. The Wpc 35641/2010 3 order passed by the court is to preserve the status quo, which is seen and reported by the Commissioner. Petitioner has equally efficacious remedy of approaching the learned Munsiff who has passed Ext.P4 seeking protection for enjoyment of the order. Since order appears to be passed as agreed to by both parties and after hearing both parties, it is certainly open to the petitioner to seek orders of police protectin from the civil court. In such circumstances, we relegate the petitioner to seek appropriate remedy before the court which passed Ext.P4 order. It is submitted that an application was already moved by the petitioner before the court seeking police protection. We only observe that such a petition should be disposed of at the earliest. Without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to seek remedy before the competent court, writ petition is dismissed. We however make it clear that if the petitioner complains of commission of any cognizable offence before the first respondent, action in accordance with law, shall be taken on the same. K.M. JOSEPH, JUDGE M.C. HARI RANI,JUDGE lgk