IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS FRIDAY, THE 19TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 30TH MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 5550 of 2010(P) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- 1. ALAVI, S/O.VEERAN MUSALIYAR, PALLIYALIL HOUSE, EDAYOOR, THENGAPARAMBU, EDAYOOR NORTH P.O., TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, NOW RESIDING AT POTHUPARA, PADAGIRI PO NELLIYAMPATHY, CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 2. NABEESUMMA, W/O.ALAVI, -D0- (PETITIONERS 1 & 2 ARE REP. BY THEIR POWER OF ATTONEY N.S.IBRAHIM, S/O.LATE MUHAMMED, PUTHENPURAYIL HOUSE, MATTATHUPADY, POTHUPARA, PADAGIRI P.O., NELLIYAMPATHY, CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT). BY ADV. SRI.H.BADARUDDIN SMT.AYSHA RAHMAN SMT.B.SHAMEERA SMT.M.ARCHANA RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, MALAPPURAM. 2. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VALANCHERRY, MALAPPURAM. 3. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KUTTIPURAM, MALAPPURAM. 4. MOIDEENKUTTY, S/O.UNIENKUTTY, PALAKKAD, RESIDING AT PULAKKATTIL HOUSE, POOLAKKADU DESOM, TRISSUR TALUK, KUTTIPURAM P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.N.SUKUMARAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.M.JOSEPH & M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. ------------------------------------------------------ W.P.(C) No.5550 of 2010-P ---------------------------------------------- Dated, this the 19th day of February, 2010 J U D G M E N T K.M.Joseph, J. Petitioners have approached this Court seeking a writ of mandamus directing respondents 1 to 3 to afford adequate police protection to the life and person of the petitioners for enjoying the civil rights guaranteed under the law. 2. Briefly put, the case of the petitioners is as follows:--Petitioners are spouses. They are having an immovable property under Ext.P1 partition deed. The 4th respondent is the neighbour of the petitioners. Exts.P2 series are the possession certificates along with copy of the basic tax register in the name of the pattedar. Ext.P3 is the location map. The case of the petitioners is that the 4th respondent has made a false claim on a strip of land on Ext.P1 property maliciously and made attempt to humiliate the petitioners with threat and nuisance even to do away with the life of the petitioners. Petitioners have filed Ext.P4 representation before the Tahasildar and Ext.P5 complaint before the S.I of W.P.C No.5550/2010 -2- Police, Kuttipuram. Ext.P7 is the copy of communication from the Additional Chief Secretary, Government of Kerala, Trivandrum informing the petitioners that their complaint against the 4th respondent was forwarded to the Director General of Police, Trivandrum for taking necessary actions. Ext.P8 is the copy of the letter from the office of the District Collector, Malappuram stating that the complaint of the petitioners against the 4th respondent is forwarded to the office of the Ist respondent. Ext.P9 is the complaint filed before the public grievance redressal cell. It is further stated that Ext.P10 is the letter of the Tahsildar, Tirur wherein the Tahsildar is alleged to have directed the 4th respondent to approach the Civil Court for claiming any right over the property in R.Sy.No.204/1 of Kuttipuram. It is stated that the Tahasildar has issued notice to the 4th respondent that the land comprised in R.Sy.No.204/1 was not belonging to the 4th respondent on physical verification of the property in accordance with the records, registers etc. 3. The petitioners have approached this Court seeking protection by the police. Apparently, the allegation is W.P.C No.5550/2010 -3- about the property dispute between the petitioners on the one hand and the 4th respondent who is admittedly the petitioners neighbour on the other hand. We feel that, in such circumstances, it is for the petitioners to work out their remedies before the Civil Court and we do not think that this is a fit case where at this stage this Court should interfere by granting any orders of police protection. Accordingly, without prejudice to the rights of the petitioners to approach the Civil Court and seek appropriate reliefs, the writ petition is disposed of. (K.M.JOSEPH) JUDGE. (M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS) JUDGE. MS