IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD MARCH 2011 / 2ND CHAITHRA 1933 WP(C).No. 24053 of 2010(F) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ 1. DANIEL ROY, S/O.JACOB JOHN, AGED 61, PEACE VILLA, BENEDICTS NAGAR, HOUSE BNRA 23, NALANCHIRA, ULLOOR VILLAGE, TRIVANDRUM-50. 2. RAJAMMA JACOB, W/O.DANIEL ROY, RESIDING AT PEACE VILLAGE, BENEDICTS NAGAR, HOUSE BNRA 23, NALANCHIRA, ULLOOR VILLAGE, TRIVANDRUM-50. BY ADV. SRI.M.RAMASWAMY PILLAI SRI.P.M.JOSEPH RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.PIN-690 001 2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, (RURAL), TRIVANDRUM.PIN- 690 001 3. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MALAYINKIZH POLICE STATION, TRIVANDRUM.PIN- 695 571 4. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MALAYINKIZH POLICE STATION, TRIVANDRUM.PIN- 695 571 WPC.NO.24053/2010 5. PONNAN NADAR SUKUMARAN, RESIDING AT KURUVILA PUTHUVAL, PUTHEN VEEDU, MARUKIL DESOM, MALAYINKIZH VILLAGE, NEYYATTINKARA TALUK.695 571 6. CHELLAMMA BABY, W/O.SUKUMARAN, RESIDING AT KURUVILA PUTHUVAL, PUTHEN VEEDU, MARUKIL DESOM, MALAYINKIZH VILLAGE, NEYYATTINKARA TALUK.PIN- 695 571 7. PONNAN NADAR THANKAPPAN, RESIDING AT CHAMAVILA PUDUVAL, PUTHEN VEEDU, MARUKIL DESOM, MALAYINKIZH VILLAGE, NEYYATTINKARA TALUK.PIN-695 571 R1 TO R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.C.M.CHARISMA R5 & R6 BY ADV. SRI.R.S.KALKURA SRI.M.S.KALESH SRI.HARISH GOPINATH SRI.V.VINAY MENON SRI.M.AJAY (IRUMPANAM) SMT.KVP.JAYALEKSHMY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts WP(C)NO.24053/2010 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1 COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.3329 OF 1995 DATED 14/09/1995. P2 COPY OF THE PERMIT NO.95/2009-2010 DATED 22/07/2009. P3 COPY OF THE PERMIT AND LICENCE RECEIPT. P4 COPY OF THE PLAN APPROVED BY THE PANCHAYAT ON 22/07/2009. P5 COPY OF THE COMPLAINT GIVEN TO THE SECOND RESPONDENT DATED 8/2/2009. P6 COPY OF THE IMPLEADING PETITION AND A PETITION TO ACCEPT THE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS FILED IN RSA.NO.780 OF 2006. P7 COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT DATED 12/7/2010 FILED IN RSA 780 OF 2006. P8 COPY OF THE COMMISSIONER'S PLAN IN O.S.NO.527/1995 P9 COPY OF THE DECREE DATED 7/2/2006. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: R5(A) COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S.527 OF 1995 ON THE FILE OF THE 1ST ADDL.MUNSIFF'S COURT, NEYYATTINKARA. R5(B) COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN O.S.NO.527 OF 1995 ON THE FILE OF THE 1ST ADDL.MUNSIFF'S COURT, NEYYATTINKARA. R5(C) COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN A.S.NO.71 OF 2000 BEFORE THE SUBORDINATE JUDGE'S COURT, NEYYATTINKARA. /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO.JUDGE sts R.BASANT & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. *********************** W.P(C) No.24053 of 2010-F ***************************** Dated this the 23rd day of March, 2011 JUDGMENT BASANT, J. The petitioners claim issue of directions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for police protection. Police protection is claimed for putting up boundaries on all the sides of of an item of property purchased by them. Respondents 5, 6 and 7 herein are raising untenable and violent objections against such putting up of the boundary, submits the learned counsel for the petitioners. 2. Respondents 5 and 6 have entered appearance through a counsel. The learned counsel submits that respondents 5 and 6 as plaintiffs have already filed a suit for declaration and putting up the boundary over a larger extent of property including the property which the petitioners claim to have purchased. The petitioners' claim is that they purchased the property from defendants 2 and 3 in that suit. Without and before settlement of the said dispute, the petitioners cannot be permitted to put up boundaries for the property, which is the subject matter of the said suit. That suit was earlier decreed. It is now pending as an R.S.A before this Court. W.P(C) No.24053 of 2010-F 2 3. On the above aspects, we find practically no dispute. But according to the petitioners, there is no dispute whatsoever about the boundaries of their property which they had purchased from defendants 2 and 3 in the said suit before this Court. 4. We have considered all the relevant inputs. Prima facie, it appears to us that the property over which compound wall is sought to be constructed by the petitioners is part of the property in the suit which is now pending consideration as an R.S.A before this Court. The petitioners, if they want to put up boundaries for their property, must certainly seek appropriate direction from the civil court either in the pending suit or in proceedings to be initiated by them. They have a grievance that though they want to get impleaded in the R.S.A, in the wake of the objection by the appellant in that R.S.A, they were not permitted to come on record. They have not challenged the order, nor have they gone to the civil court for a decree permitting them to put up boundaries around their property. The petitioners have undertaken before this Court that they shall demolish the boundary if ultimately the civil court would so direct. W.P(C) No.24053 of 2010-F 3 5. We have considered all the relevant inputs. We are certainly not persuaded to agree that the extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction under Article 226 can, need or deserves to be invoked in a matter like this to enable the petitioner to put up boundary over an item of property regarding which disputes exist and regarding which a suit is already pending. Admittedly the petitioners have not gone to the civil court to get their right to put up the boundary established. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there is a threat to the life of the petitioners. Threat to life is there obviously when they attempt to assert the disputed right over their property. Sans the property dipsute, no threat to life is asserted or indicated. 7. We are not persuaded to agree that any directions deserve to be issued in this Writ Petition. This Writ Petition is, in these circumstances, dismissed. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE) rtr/