IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN TUESDAY, THE 8TH MARCH 2011 / 17TH PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 1378 of 2011(V) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ NIZARUDHEEN, AGED 48 YEARS, S/O.JAMAL MUHAMMED, DARUL ARKHAM, KALLMBALAM, NAVAIKULAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.R.SIVAKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN-691 001. 2. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHATHANNOOR POLICE STATION, KOLLAM DISTRICT- 691 572. 3. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHATHANNOOR POLICE STATION, KOLLAM DISTRICT-691 572. 4.* REMADEVI, (CORRECTED AS REMABHAI) JANAKI NILAYAM, KOONAYIL, PARAVOOR PO, KOLLAM DISTRICT-691 301. * NAME OF THE FOURTH RESPONDENT IS CORRECTED AS 'REMABHAI' INSTEAD OF 'REMADEVI' AS PER ORDER DATED IN IA.1260/2011 DATED 31/1/2011. R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. C.M. CHARISMA R4 BY ADV. SRI.B.SURESH KUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts WP(C)NO.1378/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1 COPY OF THE SALE DEED DATED 31/03/2010ALONG WITH TAX RECEIPT. P2 COPY OF THE SALE DEED DATED 20/05/2010 ALONG WITH THE TAX RECEIPT. P3 COPY OF THE SALE DEED DATED 22/04/2010 ALONG WITH THE TAX RECEIPT. P4 COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION REPORT DATED 14/07/2010. P5 COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 05/01/2011. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: R4(A) COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 21/12/1996 IN O.S.NO.46/1991 ON THE FILES OF MUNSIFF'S COURT, PARAVUR. R4(B) COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 29/8/1998 IN A.S.NO.16/1997 PASSED BY THE DISTRICT COURT,KOLLAM. R4(C) COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 6/4/2009 IN S.A.NO.292/1999 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT. R4(D) COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 21/4/2006 IN WP(C)NO.11316/2006 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT. R4(E) COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 6/5/2008 IN WP(C)NO.14207/2008 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT. R4(F) COPY OF THE INFORMATION DATED 8/8/2010 ISSUEDTO THE 4TH RESPONDENT BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHATHANNOOR. /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO.JUDGE sts R.BASANT & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. *********************** W.P(C) No.1378 of 2011-V ***************************** Dated this the 8th day of March, 2011 JUDGMENT BASANT, J. The petitioner has come to this Court with this petition for issue of directions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to respondents 1 to 3 to afford protection to the petitioner against the illegal, contumacious and culpable acts of the 4th respondent, a woman. 2. According to the petitioner, he has purchased 1.13 acres of land. Subsequently he purchased 3 cents of land from the 4th respondent herein. There was an agreement between him and the 4th respondent to sell to the petitioner a larger extent of property. That agreement has not worked. According to the petitioner, the 4th respondent is unnecessarily creating disputes and raising objections and obstructions against the enjoyment of the property by the petitioner. Complaints made to the police officials, ie. respondents 1 to 3 have not evoked any useful response. It is, in these circumstances, that the petitioner has come to this Court with this petition for police protection. 3. Respondent No.4 has entered appearance. Respondent No.4 opposes the prayer for police protection. The W.P(C) No.1378 of 2011-V 2 learned counsel for respondent No.4 submits that the petitioner has not placed the real facts before the Court. There was a litigation between the predecessor in interest of the 4th respondent on the one hand and the predecessors in interest of the petitioner on the other. In such litigations, the predecessor in interest of the 4th respondent had succeeded. Though subsequently there was a sale deed executed in favour of the petitioner, the agreement to purchase larger extent of property from the 4th respondent by the petitioner has not been complied with. Consequent disputes have arisen. In fact, the 4th respondent had earlier obtained an order of police protection against the litigant in Ext.R4(a), from whom the petitioner now claims to have acquired rights. In any view of the matter, the learned counsel for the 4th respondent submits that this is not a dispute that can be resolved in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution and if the petitioner has any genuine grievance, he must go to the civil court and seek appropriate orders. The petitioner is attempting to steal a march over the 4th respondent by claiming directions for police protection and describing the dispute to be a law and order dispute. W.P(C) No.1378 of 2011-V 3 4. The learned Government Pleader submits that essentially the dispute is a civil dispute between the petitioner and the 4th respondent. Crimes have been registered at the instance of both of them and the same are pending. 5. We have considered all the relevant inputs. It is transparently evident that the petitioner and the 4th respondent are owners of adjacent properties and they have civil disputes between them. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the 4th respondent, such a dispute cannot be resolved by resort to the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The parties, if they have any grievance, must certainly approach the civil court. They cannot be issued any directions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to resolve the civil disputes between them. In the result, this Writ Petition is dismissed with the above observations. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE) rtr/ W.P(C) No.1378 of 2011-V 4 W.P(C) No.1378 of 2011-V 5 R.BASANT & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. *********************** W.P(C) No.1378 of 2011 ***************************** Dated this the 24th day of January, 2011 ORDER BASANT, J. The learned Government Pleader prays for time to take instructions. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. This Writ Petition is admitted. The learned Government Pleader has already entered appearance for respondents 1 to 3. Issue notice to the 4th respondent. The learned counsel for the petitioner prays and is accordingly permitted to take out notice to respondent No.4 by special messenger. 2. Verify service and call again on 31.01.2011. W.P(C) No.1378 of 2011-V 6 (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE) rtr/