IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.HARILAL TUESDAY, THE 13TH DECEMBER 2011 / 22ND AGRAHAYANA 1933 WP(C).No. 32188 of 2011(W) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------------------- VIJAYAKOSH, S/O.PONNAPPAN PILLAI, AGED 47 YEARS, ANIZHAM VEEDU, PERUMPUZHA CHERIYIL, ILAMPALLOOR VILLAGE, KUNDARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.ALEXANDER GEORGE RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT.PIN-690 001 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT.PIN-690 001 3. VIJAYAKUMARAN PILLAI, S/O.NARAYANA PILLAI, VIJAYA SADANAM, ANDOOR MURI, VALAKOM VILLAGE, KOTTARAKKARA.PIN-690 001 4. THULASEEDHARAN PILLAI, S/O.NARAYANA PILLAI, VIJAYA SADANAM, ANDOOR MURI, VALAKOM VILLAGE, KOTTARAKKARA.PIN-690 001 R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.P.MAYA R3 & R4 BY ADV. SRI.K.V.ANIL KUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/12/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts WP(C)NO.32188/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SETTLEMENT DEED EXECUTED INFAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER ON 4/11/2011 BEFORE THE SRO KOTTARAKKARA. EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : R2(A) A TRUE COPY THE INJECTION ORDER IN O.S.618/2011 OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, KOTTARAKKARA. R2(B) A TRUE COPY THE COMMISSION REPORT IN O.S.618/2011 OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, KOTTARAKKARA. /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO.JUDGE sts PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & K.HARILAL, JJ. ----------------------- W.P.(C) NO. 32188 OF 2011 ------------------------ Dated this the 13th day of December, 2011 JUDGMENT Pius C.Kuriakose, J. The petitioner, who claims to be the owner in possession of 50 cents of property situated in Survey Nos. 331/2-3 and 331/2-5 of Valakom Village, has filed this writ petition seeking police protection directions for cutting and removing the rubber trees standing in the above property having 50 cents in extent. 2. The party respondents are his own brother-in- laws. They have filed a counter affidavit wherein they contended that the civil suit is pending before the Munsiff Court, Kottarakara and the Munsiff Court has issued Ext.R3(a) injunction order against the petitioner. 3. Smt. P.Maya learned Government Pleader on the basis of the instructions from respondents 1 and 2 submitted that the police conducted an enquiry into Ext.P2 petition which was filed by the petitioner. As part of the enquiry, respondents 3 and 4 W.P.(C) No. 32188 /2011 2 were summoned to the police station. The police tried to bring forth a compromise between the parties. But, respondents 3 and 4 maintained that the property, where the rubber trees are standing, is the subject matter of the civil suit. Hence, the police were unable to bring forth any settlement. 4. We have heard Sri. Alexander George learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.K.V.Anil Kumar learned counsel for the party respondents and also the learned Government Pleader Smt.Maya. 5. Smt.Alelxander George submitted that Ext.R3(a) suit and injunction order pertains to only A schedule property in that suit. 50 cents, where the rubber trees stand, is not the subject matter of the suit at all. The learned counsel for the party respondents conceded that the suit is one for injunction only. But, according to him, as there is boundary dispute, the police protection cannot be granted. 6. Having considered the rival submissions addressed at the Bar, we feel that this is a case where the petitioner should seek clarification from the Munsiff Court, Kottarakara to the effect that the suit and the order does not pertain to 50 cents of W.P.(C) No. 32188 /2011 3 property claimed by the petitioner in this writ petition. Once, clarification is issued, the petitioner can produce the clarification before the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent, will upon receiving such clarification, issue protection to the petitioner and his contractors for cutting and removing the rubber trees standing on the 50 cents of the property. But, if the petitioner is unable to obtain clarification as indicated above, the protection will not be afforded. Protection directions issued herein above will stand automatically withdrawn if clarification issued by the learned Munsiff is stayed by any superior court. The writ petition is disposed of as above. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE K.HARILAL, JUDGE. dpk W.P.(C) No. 32188 /2011 4 PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE K.HARILAL, JUDGE. dpk W.P.(C) No. 32188 /2011 5