IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS THURSDAY, THE 10TH JUNE 2010 / 20TH JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).No. 14562 of 2010(U) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- DR.CHANDI JOSEPH,MDS,AGED 58 YEARS, S/O.LATE P.K.JOSEPH, PUTHANPURACKAL HOUSE, NEAR YMCA,ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.R.AZAD BABU RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLCIE, KAINAKARI POLCIE STATION, ALAPPUZHA. 2. DY.SUPERINTENDENT OF POLCIE, ALAPPUZHA. 3. K.V.SAJEEV,KAMICHERRY VEEDU, KANNADY P.O.,PULINKUNNU, ALAPPUZHA. 4. REJI CHENNEKKATTU, CHENNAKKATTU VEEDU, VELIYANADU P.O.,ALAPPUZHA. 5. D.RAMACHANDRAN, NALPATHIL, VELIYANADU.P.O.,ALAPPUZHA. G.P. SHRI T K VIPINDAS FOR R1-R2 ADV. SRI.B.PRAMOD FOR R3-5 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 14562 of 2010 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS : EXT.P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE WILL DT. 16.1.1995 EXECUTED BY THE MOTHER OF THE PETITIONER. EXT.P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 29.4.2010 SUBMITTED TO THE PSO BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 5.5.2010 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P4 : A SKETCH SHOWING THE LIE AND NATURE OF THE PROPERTY OF THE PETITIONER. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : EXT.R3(a): A TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S. 361/2010 OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, ALAPPUZHA EXT.R3(b) : A TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED NIL EXECUTED BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.R3(c): A TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S. NO.369/10 OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, ALAPPUZHA // TRUE COPY // K. M. JOSEPH & M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C).No. 14562 of 2010 U - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 10th day of June, 2010 JUDGMENT Joseph, J. The petitioner has approached this court for a direction to respondents 1 and 2 to afford adequate and sufficient protection to the life and property of the petitioner. 2. Briefly the case of the petitioner is as follows. Petitioner is holding 6 and odd acres of reclaimed land in Kuttanad. For facilitating paddy cultivation in the said padasekharam, outer bunds are constructed from time to time at the behest of the Nellupadaka Samithy and Padasekhara committee. All these years bund is constructed through the western side of the properties belonging to various persons lying on the west and north of the petitioner's property. He is residing far away. He came to know that respondents 3 to 5 have collected materials for constructing bunds through the eastern and southern W.P.(C).No. 14562 of 2010 2 boundaries of the petitioner's property. He submitted a petition before the Punch Special Officer, who is competent to grant permission to execute works. He was told that no permission is granted. Allegation is made against respondents 3 to 5 as persons having political clout and support. 3. The respondents are trying to block the flow of water to the petitioner's property by putting the bunds. If such construction is done, water supply to his property will be cut off and he will not be able to carry out his cultivation. 4. A counter affidavit is filed by respondents 3 to 6. 5. We heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the party respondents as also the learned Government Pleader. 6. According to the learned counsel for the respondents the bunds have been put up on puramboke land and not in the property of the petitioner. Of course, learned counsel for the petitioner disputes the said fact. 7. A report is called for through the Government Pleader. He would submit that the Panchayat has reported that the bunds have been W.P.(C).No. 14562 of 2010 3 put up on Panchayat property. The Village Officer has instructed him to submit that without measurement it cannot be ascertained. Either way, it may be inappropriate for this Court to venture into deciding such issues under the extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. We think it appropriate to relegate the petitioner to appropriate competent civil court. Ascertainment of certain basic facts are necessary for considering the question. 8. This Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of relegating the petitioner to competent civil court. However, we make it clear that if there is complaint of commission of any cognizable offence by the party respondents, the official respondents will take necessary action in accordance with law. (K. M. JOSEPH) Judge (M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS) Judge tm