IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN THURSDAY, THE 7TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 18TH MAGHA 1929 WP(C).No. 3555 of 2008(W) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ CHERIYAN JOSEPH @ THANKACHAN, KUNTHRAKKARI HOUSE, MUTTATHIPARAMBU P.O., SREEKANDAMANGALAM, THANNEERMUKKOM NORTH, CHERTHALA. BY ADV. SRI.K.GOPALAKRISHNA KURUP SRI.MANU.M.THOMAS RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ALAPPUZHA. 2. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MARARIKULAM. 3. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MUHAMMA. 4. ANTONY, S/O APPACHAN, PANTHIPURATHUKARI, MUTTATHIPARAMBU, SREEKANDAMANGALAM, THANNEERMUKKOM NORTH, CHERTHALA. 5. R.PRASANNAN, PADINJADATHU, SREEKANDAMANGALAM, MUTTATHIPARAMBU P.O. 6. K.N.MURALEEDHARAN, EZHASSERIKKARI, SREEKANDAMANGALAM, MUTTATHIPARAMBU P.O. 7. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOME, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. WPC 3555/2008 BY ADV. SRI.ABRAHAM MATHEW (VETTOOR) GOVT. PLEADER SRI.P.A.SALIM. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC 3555/08 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXTS. EXT.P1 - TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 9.4.2007 IN O.S. NO.288/2007 OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, CHERTHALA. EXT.P2 - TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 9.1.2000 IN I.A.NO.109/2008 IN O.S. NO.288/2007 OF THE ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF'S COURT, CHERTHALA. EXT.P3 - TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE LEFT BY THEM IN THE PETITIONER'S HOUSE. EXT.P4 - TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. /TRUE COPY/ K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & P.N.RAVINDRAN, JJ. ----------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO. 3555 OF 2008-W ----------------------------------------- Dated 7th February, 2008. JUDGMENT Balakrishnan Nair, J. The petitioner submits, he owns 2.25 acres of land in Thanneermukkam Grama Panchayat. He is residing in that property. A pathway is running through the side of the said property. The local people wanted to develop it into a road. The petitioner is ready to surrender land to a width of 1.5 metres from the above said property for the above said purpose. But, the local people wanted more land. When there was attempt to encroach into his property under the guise of widening the road, he moved the civil court and obtained Ext.P1 interim injunction order. The 4th respondent herein is impleaded as a defendant in that suit in a representative capacity. Later, the learned Munsiff passed Ext.P2 order, directing the police to give assistance to the petitioner to enforce the injunction order. While so, the respondents 5 and 6 have published Ext.P3 hand bill, proclaiming to boycott the petitioner and his family members and also to obstruct them, if they come to any public place. In the background of the above threat published as per Ext.P3, the petitioner filed Ext.P4 WPC 3555/2008 2 representation before the police, seeking police assistance. The petitioner had shifted to Ernakulam and he is presently residing with his sister there along with his family members. Thereafter, this writ petition is filed, seeking the following reliefs: “(i) to issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, direction or order directing the respondents 1 to 3 to render necessary and adequate protection to the petitioner and his family members from the illegal acts of respondents 4 to 6 and their men, (ii) to issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate direction or order to the respondents 1 to 3 to provide necessary assistance and protection to the petitioner and his family members to move into their family house at Thanneermukkom.” 2. The 4th respondent has filed a counter affidavit, stating that he has nothing to do with the road construction committee. But, he has been impleaded as a person representing the said committee in Ext.P1 suit. Since he has nothing to do with the committee, he did not appear or defend the suit. The petitioner has done it deliberately. Actually, the local Grama Panchayat, its members and other people are behind the opening of the new road. None of them is impleaded in the suit. So, Exts.P1 and P2 are sham documents. They have been obtained by the petitioner by playing fraud on the court. It is also submitted that the 4th respondent has nothing to do with Ext.P3. In this writ petition also, he has been unnecessarily impleaded. WPC 3555/2008 3 3. The learned Government Pleader upon instructions submitted that both sides were called to the police station and the parties were directed to approach the Panchayat and settle the dispute. Instead of doing that, the petitioner has shifted his residence to Ernakulam and thereafter, this writ petition is filed. 4. If there is any encroachment into the property of the petitioner, his remedy is only before the civil court. But, if the committee headed by respondents 5 and 6 is causing physical obstruction to the petitioner or his family members, on being alerted about the same, the police shall remove the obstruction. If intimated, the police shall render assistance to them to go around to attend their affairs. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE. P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE. Nm/