IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.HARILAL THURSDAY, THE 24TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 3RD AGRAHAYANA 1933 WP(C).No. 27632 of 2011(D) -------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------ SUHARA, AGED 36, W/O.MUHAMMED ALI, AMBALATHUVEETTIL, PADINJARANGADI.P.O., PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.JOHNSON MANAYANI SRI.BENHUR JOSEPH MANAYANI SRI.JEEVAN MATHEW MANAYANI RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. SRI.VELLICHATHAMKULANGARA AHAMMAD, S/O.MUHAMMED, AMBALATHUVEETTIL, PADINJARANGADI.P.O., PALAKKAD.-678001 2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, PALAKKAD.678 001. 3. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, SHORNUR.679 121. 4. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PATTAMBI.679 303. 5. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TRITHALA.679 304. SRI.P.K.MOHANAN(PALAKKAD) FOR R1 SR. GOVT. PLEADER SRI.M.K.ABOOBACKER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 27632 of 2011(D) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXTS EXT.P1:- TRUE COPY OF the TAX RECEIPT DT.15/10/11 EXT.P2:- TRUE COPY OF THE ORIGINAL TITLE DEED IN FAVOUR TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P3:- TRUE COPY OF the SAID DEED EXECUTED BY THE PETITIONER IN FAVOUR OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P4:- TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 15/10/11 FILED BY THE PETITONER BEFORE RESPONDENTS 2 TO 5. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & K. HARILAL, JJ. ------------------------------------------------ W. P. C. No.27632 of 2011 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 24th day of November, 2011 JUDGMENT Pius C. Kuriakose, J The petitioner, a lady has filed this Writ Petition arraying her husband's brother-in-law as the 1st respondent and the local police officers as respondents. The prayers in the Writ Petition are as follows:- “Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writs, directions or orders commanding respondents 2 to 5 to grant police protection to the petitioner's property and to make appropriate measures to thwart and avert further offences committed by the first respondent and his henchmen. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writs, directions or orders directing the 2nd respondent to enquire into the petitioner's Ext.P4 complaint and make appropriate steps against the first respondent.” 2. The learned Government Pleader on the basis of instructions from the police officers submitted that the main bone of contention between the parties is a pathway. W. P. C. No.27632 of 2011 -2- Essentially the dispute between the petitioner and 1st respondent is civil in nature the petitioner may have to seek redressal of the grievance from a competent civil court. The learned Government Pleader is certainly right in submitting that when the dispute is regarding pathway, the competent court to grant relief is the civil court. At the same time, we are convinced that the relationship between the petitioner and the 1st respondent, in view of their dispute over the pathway has become strained to a point of no return and we feel that law and order situations are likely to arise. Under the above circumstances, we dispose of the Writ Petition directing the 5th respondent Sub Inspector of Police, Trithala to keep constant vigil over the petitioner and 1st respondent and their places of residence as well as the pathway in question and to take appropriate action at the appropriate time on the basis of reports received and to ensure that the dispute between the petitioner and 1st respondent does not give rise to any law and order situation or eruption of W. P. C. No.27632 of 2011 -3- violence. Sd/- PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE Sd/- K. HARILAL JUDGE kns/- //True Copy// P. A. TO JUDGE