IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN MONDAY, THE 25TH MAY 2009 / 4TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 13789 of 2009(P) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- MUHAMMED SHERIF, S/O.MUHAMMED ALIAS BAVA, CHELAMPRA P.O., THIRURANGADI TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.G.HARIHARAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CALICUT UNIVERSITY POLICE STATION, THENJIPALAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. AHAMMED KUTTY, S/O.UNNIKOYA, KALLUVALAPPIL HOUSE, IDIMUZHIKKAL, PIN 673634. BY GP P A SALIM ADV. SRI.SREEJITH S.NAIR FOR R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/05/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX(WP(C) 13789/2009) PETITIONER'S EXTS. EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTERED DEED 348/99 OF SRO, THIRURANGADI. EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE NO.2097/2000 DTD. 26.6.2000 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, CHELAMPRA VILLAGE. EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE RDO, THIRUR DTD. 1.8.2007. EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 14.5.2009 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE R1. lgk P.R.RAMAN & P.BHAVADASAN, JJ. -------------------------------------------------------- WPC 13789 OF 2009-P -------------------------------------------------------- Dated 25th May 2009 Judgment RAMAN, J. The petitioner seeks police protection for his life and his workers from the threat caused by the second respondent. It is his case that he is in possession and enjoyment of 47.5 cents of properties in village in taluk. The land is not suitable for cultivation. So he obtained permission from the Revenue Divisional Officer for levelling the land as evidenced by Ext.P3 proceedings. When he attempted to level the land after obtaining necessary permission, the 2nd respondent is causing physical obstruction. 2. The 2nd respondent has filed a counter affidavit. The said respondent has not raised any valid right for causing the obstruction. Even according to him, the land is a bushy area and is being used by anti social elements in the absence of the petitioner, who is mostly away and is staying in Uttar Pradesh. At the same time, he also says that the attempt to level the WPC 13789/09 2 property should not be done without proper supervision. When the petitioner has obtained valid permit from the concerned authorities and wants to level the property, the grievance of the respondents that the land is being used for anti social activities because of the bushes that are growing in the property could be redressed. If so, we do not find any reason why any physical obstruction should be caused to the levelling of the land by the petitioner. In the circumstances, if any obstruction is caused by the second respondent, the police shall necessarily afford protection to the petitioner for his life and workers. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. P.R.RAMAN, JUDGE P.BHAVADASAN, JUDGE sta WPC 13789/09 3 WPC 13789/09 4