IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.HARILAL FRIDAY, THE 23RD DECEMBER 2011 / 2ND POUSHA 1933 WP(C).No. 33973 of 2011(V) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- K.SIVADASAN,S/O.KESAVAN,EDAKKALOOR THEKETHIL VEEDU,THUDANTHALA MURI,UMMANNOOR VILLAGE NELLIKKUNNAM.P.O,KOTTARAKKARA,KOLLAM-691623. BY ADV. SRI.G.BHAGAVAT SINGH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,KOTTARAKKARA POLICE STATION,KOTTARAKKARA.P.O,KOLLAM-691506. 2. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KOTTARAKKARA,KOTTARAKKARA.P.O,KOLLAM-691506. 3. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (RURAL),KOTTARAKKARA,KOTTARAKKARA.P.O, KOLLAM-691506. 4. THE DISTRICT POLICE SUPERINTENDENT (RURAL),OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT POLICE SUPERINTENDENT (RURAL),KOTTARAKKARA-691506. 5. HAREENDRAN,S/O.MADHAVAN,EDAKKALLOOR THEKKETHIL VEEDU EDANTHALA MURI,UMMANNOOR VILLAGE, NELLIKKUNNAM.P.O,KOTTARAKKARA,KOLLAM-691623. 6. GEETHA,W/O.HAREENDRAN,EDAKKALLOOR THEKKETHIL VEEDU,EDANTHALA MURI,UMMANNOOR VILLAGE, NELLIKKUNNAM.P.O,KOTTARAKKARA,KOLLAM-691623. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.T.P.SAJID THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 33973 of 2011(V) APPENDIX PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS EXT.P1: COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DT.07.04.2011 EXT.P2: COPY OF THE APPLICATION DT.11.11.2011 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE TAHSILDAR EXT.P3: COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 07.12.2011. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE RE-SURVEY PLAN OF FIELD NO.62 IN BLOCK NO.24 OF UMMANNOOR VILLAGE. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 12.12.2011 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 14.12.2011 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P7: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 15.12.2011 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE ab PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & K.HARILAL,JJ ------------------------------------------------- W.P(C) No.33973 of 2011 -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of December, 2011 J U D G M E N T Pius C. Kuriakose, J The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking the following directions: “a) direct the 1st respondent that not to harass the petitioner and his family members by illegally interfering with the construction of the compound wall as per the boundary determined by the Taluk Surveyor; b) direct the respondents 1 and 4 to provide effective and adequate police protection for the construction of the compound wall after restraining the respondents 5 & 6 from interfering with the construction of the compound wall within the property of the petitioner. c) direct the 1st respondent to initiate stringent action against the respondent 3 to 5 and their men in the event of any illegal interference with the construction of the compound wall.” 2. The 5th respondent in this writ petition is the petitioner's own nephew and the 6th respondent is the wife of the 5th respondent. 3. According to the petitioner the 1st respondent who is bound to give protection to the petitioner for the construction of a compound wall on the boundary between his property and the W.P(C) No.33973 of 2011 2 property of the 5th respondent which has been fixed as per Ext.P3 by the Taluk Surveyor is not only granting him protection but is actually preventing him from putting the compound wall. Eventhough notice was served by special messenger on respondents 5 and 6, they have not come forward to this Court for resisting this writ petition. The allegations in this writ petition as against those respondents stands established by non- traverse. 4. We have heard Sri.G.Bhagavat Singh, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.T.P.Sajid, the learned Senior Government Pleader. Sri.T.P.Sajid submitted that the 5th respondent is a deaf and dump person. The police found that there is a boundary dispute between the petitioner and the 5th respondent and this was why the police advised the parties to seek remedy from a competent civil court. The action of the police cannot be branded as harassment nor can the same be branded as dereliction of duty as the police is not expected to intervene in the civil dispute between parties. 5. We have considered the submissions addressed at the Bar. It would appear that as if the stand taken by the police is reasonable but Ext.P3 will show that the Taluk Surveyor who is W.P(C) No.33973 of 2011 3 the competent authority in the matter of survey and measurement as far as the Taluk is concerned, has conducted measurement and fixed a particular boundary. We also notice that the party respondents have not chosen to deny the allegations in this writ petition. Under the above circumstances we are inclined to grant the reliefs. 6. The writ petition is disposed of directing respondents 1 and 2 to afford adequate protection to the petitioner for the construction of the compound wall as per Ext.P3 boundary fixed by the Taluk Surveyor. The respondent 1 is is further directed to keep constant vigil over the petitioner and the party respondents and to ensure by taking appropriate prompt action whenever warranted, that no law and order situation arises or any violence erupts on account of the dispute between the petitioner and the party respondents. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE K.HARILAL JUDGE ab