IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH MARCH 2011 / 25TH PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 27284 of 2010(I) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SIKKANDER, S/O.MUHAMMEDALI, AGED 57 YEARS, ANAS MANZIL, MURIKKUM PALLATHU, VANOOR, KATTUSSERY AMSOM, ALATHUR TALUK PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.JOHN JOSEPH(ROY) RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. S.I.OF POLICE , ALATHUR POLICE STATION PALAKKAD DISTRICT 678 541 2. ASHRAF, S/O.SIKKANDAR, AGED 36 YEARS AMBATTUPARAMBU HOUSE, VAVULLIAPURAM PO TARUR -11 ,ALATHUR 678 547. 3. BEEPATHUMA, W/O.SIKKANDAR,AGED 55 YEARS KORNAMKODE,VAVULLIAPURAM , TARUR -11 ,ALATHUR 678 547. 4. RAMSEENA, W/O. SHOUKATH ALI, AGED 27 YEARS, KORNAMKODE, VAVULLIAPURAM ,TARUR -11 ,ALATHUR 678 547. R1 BY GOVT. PLEADER: SMT. CHARISMA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO27284 OF 2010 APPENDIX PETITONERS EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT DATED 15/07/2010 IN O.S. NO.199/2009 ON THE MUNSIFFS COURT, ALATHUR. P2: COPY OF THE DECREE DATED 15/07/2010 IN O.S. NO. 199/2009 OF THE MUNISIFFS COURT, ALATHUR. P3: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT ON 30/08/2010. RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: NIL TRUE COPY SM P.A. TO JUDGE R.BASANT & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. *********************** W.P(C) No.27284 of 2010-I ***************************** Dated this the 16th day of March, 2011 JUDGMENT BASANT, J. Petitioner has come to this Court with this petition for issue of directions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to the 1st respondent to afford police protection to him to cut and remove certain trees which are standing in the property belonging to him and in his possession. 2. Respondent No.2 is the son of the petitioner. The 3rd respondent is the wife of the petitioner and respondent No.4 is the wife of another son of the petitioner. Respondents 2 and 4 are residing in a residential building in the property. According to the petitioner, respondents 2 to 4 have no semblance of right to interfere with his possession and enjoyment of the property. He concedes that they are residing in the house of the property. The petitioner had filed a suit against the 4th respondent, her husband and another son of his, demanding that they should vacate the house in the property. The suit has been decreed, but the decree has admittedly not been executed. According to the petitioner, respondents 2 to 4 are unjustifiably raising objections against cutting and removal of the trees. W.P(C) No.27284 of 2010- 2 3. Service is complete. Respondents have been served. They have not chosen to enter appearance. When this matter came up for hearing, another Bench which dealt with the matter on 06.12.2010 passed the following order. “The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner will move and get permission for cutting certain trees. As of now, the petitioner is yet to obtain permission and therefore the petitioner does not have the authority in law to cut the trees. Therefore, at this stage, if may not be appropriate for this Court to grant the direction sought by the petitioner. It is open to the petitioner to move this petition after the petitioner obtains lawful permission from the concerned authority.” 4. After 06.12.2010, there was no posting. The matter has now come up because the Registry has posted the case for final disposal. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has not obtained permission for cutting the trees. But he would contend that if police protection were ordered, he shall obtain the requisite permission and then cut the trees. An affidavit to that effect has been filed by the petitioner, it is submitted. We are not persuaded to issue any direction for police protection before he has obtained the requisite permission to cut the tree. We say so because in the nature of the dispute that raised before W.P(C) No.27284 of 2010- 3 us where respondents 2 to 4 have not entered appearance and raised any objection, we do not consider it expedient to grant police protection without and before the petitioner secures the requisite permission as insisted by the order dated 06.12.2010. 6. Coming to the dispute between respondents 2 to 4, there is no doubt that they are lawfully in occupation of the building in question. It is not disputed that there is some strain in the relationship between respondents 2 to 4 and the petitioner. We are of opinion, in these circumstances, that the petitioner who had gone to court claiming eviction against his kith and kin must seek his remedy before the civil court itself. We are not persuaded to agree that any direction under Article 226 of the Constitution can, need or deserves to be issued in this Writ Petition. 7. This Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed with the above observations. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE) rtr/