IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN THURSDAY, THE 20TH JANUARY 2011 / 30TH POUSHA 1932 WP(C).No. 9288 of 2010(I) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- K.V.SATHYANATHAN, S/O.K.E.BALAKRISHNA KURUP, SATHYASADANAM, THAYINERI, PAYYANNUR, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.V.AMARESAN RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KANNUR. 2. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VALAPATTANAM. 3. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VALAPATTANAM. 4. RAJESH K.V.(MANI), S/O DAMODARA MARAR K.P., ARATTU VAYAL, CHIRAKKAL, VALAPATTANAM P.O. 5. UNNI.P.V., S/O.NARAYANAN, PUTHIYA VEEDU, PATTUVATHERU, CHIRAKKAL. 6. LATHEESH.P.V., S/O.LAKSHMANAN, PUTHIYA VEEDU, ARATTUVAYAL, CHIRAKKAL. 7. SURESH VARMA C.K., S/O.CHANDRAMATHI THAMBURATTI, PUTHIYA KOTTARAM, KANNUR-11. R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.T.K.VIPINDAS R7 BY ADV. SRI.N.NAGARESH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts WP(C)NO.9288/2010 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1 COPY OF THE PURCHASE CERTIFICATE NO.572/77 FROM KANNUR DEPUTY COLLECTOR LAND TRIBUNAL. P2 COPY OF THE ORDER IN O.A.NO.22055/76 DATED 29/11/1979. P3 COPY OF THE TAX PAID RECEIPT DATED 2/12/2009. P4 COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO.JUDGE sts R.BASANT & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. *********************** W.P(C) No.9288 of 2010 ***************************** Dated this the 20th day of January, 2011 JUDGMENT BASANT, J. The petitioner has come to this Court asserting the claim that he has as one of the co-owners of an item of property measuring about 86 cents in Chirakkal Amsom and Desom. According to the petitioner, respondents 4 to 7, whom the petitioner describes to be R.S.S activists, are demanding that the property must be given free of cost to them. They are not allowing the petitioner to deal with the property or exercise his rights in respect of the property. It is, in these circumstances, that the petitioner has come to this Court seeking police protection for his life and property. 2. Respondents have been served. The 7th respondent has entered appearance and the others have not entered appearance. The 7th respondent contends that he is at a loss to understand why he has been arrayed as a respondent in this proceedings. He belongs to the Chirakkal Kovilakam and except this, he cannot find any connection between him and the W.P(C) No.9288 of 2010 2 disputes projected by the petitioner. Respondents 4 to 6, though served, have not chosen to enter appearance. 3. The learned Government Pleader after taking instructions from respondents 1 to 3 submits that the real dispute has not been projected by the petitioner before the Court. According to the learned Government Pleader, the property belonged originally to Chirakkal Kovilakam. Chirakkal Kovilakam had many devaswoms under it and one of them is the Kalarivathilkkal devaswom. According to the learned Government Pleader, the devaswom has staked a claim over this property. A complaint had been received by the police from the local people when attempt was made by the petitioner to construct a compound wall over the property, which he claims is his. According to the local people, this land does not belong to the petitioner. The land in question is used in connection with the annual festival of the local temple where the temple procession comes to an end. Because of the essentially civil nature of the dispute, when the earlier complaint was received, the police wanted law and order to be maintained and wanted the parties to settle their disputes before the appropriate civil court and no action was initiated. The petitioner is now W.P(C) No.9288 of 2010 3 attempting to secure an order for police protection from this Court, so that he can avoid getting the dispute resolved in accordance with law before the civil court. The learned Government Pleader submits that, in these circumstances, directions for police protection may not be issued. The petitioner may be relegated to the civil court to establish his rights. Only thereafter, the petitioner may be permitted to put up the compound wall. 4. We find merit in the objection of the learned Government Pleader. We take note of the contention of the learned Government Pleader that the petitioner's assertion of rights over this property is disputed by the local people and according to them he has no rights, title or possession over this piece of land. As per the submission of the learned Government Pleader, the executive officer of the Kalarivathilkkal temple has also raised objections against the putting up of the compound wall. A customary right has been asserted by the local public over the property in question. 5. In any view of the matter, we are not satisfied that the dispute has to be or can be resolved in a petition for police protection. The petitioner must certainly get his right W.P(C) No.9288 of 2010 4 established and seek proper orders from the civil court. In this proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution for affording police protection, such complicated issues about the rights of individuals cannot be adjudicated and settled. 6. With the above observations, this Writ Petition is dismissed. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE) rtr/