IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN TUESDAY, THE 4TH AUGUST 2009 / 13TH SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 21505 of 2009(G) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------------- 1. BALACHANDRAN NAIR, MALERIL VEEDU, ERUVELI, PALLIKKARA P.O. 2. REMA DEVI SAJEEVAN, W/O.SAJEEVAN, MULLAKKAL VEEDU, VADAVUKODE. 3. CHANDRAVATHY, MALERIL VEEDU, ERUVELI, PALLIKKARA P.O. BY ADV. SRI.T.M.ABDUL LATHEEF RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, AMBALAMEDU. 2. BHASKARAN NAIR, S/O.GOVINDA PILLAI, AYATHUMPARAMBIL, KUZHIKKATTUKARA, AMBALAMEDU P.O. BY GOVT.PLEADER SRI. P.A. SALIM. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC. 21505/2009. APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXTS: EXT. P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE DOCUMENT NO.4009/1980 DATED 29.11.1980. EXT. P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE DEATH CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY VADAVUCODE-PUTHENCRUZ GRAMA PANCHAYAT ON 25.2.2008. EXT. P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE WILL DEED NO,38/3/199 DATED 5.3.1999. P.R. RAMAN & P. BHAVADASAN, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No. 21505 of 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 4th day of August, 2009. JUDGMENT Raman, J, Petitioners seek the following reliefs: “(i) To call for the records relating to Exts.P1 to P3 and to issue a writ of mandamus commanding the first respondent not to cause any obstruction to the carrying out of the boundary wall construction in the petitioners' property especially on the northern side covered by Ext.P1 and also to give sufficient protection for doing the same.” 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to construct the boundary wall cannot be decided in this case. But according to the learned Government Pleader, a complaint was received from the second respondent alleging that the construction of the compound wall is encroaching the revenue puramboke. Second respondent is only a private party. If the petitioners are encroaching upon any canal or revenue property, the complaint should come from that authority. Significantly despite issuance of notice to second WPC.21505/2009. 2 respondent, he has not turned up to controvert the allegations. In such circumstances, unless there is any complaint received from the revenue authorities, first respondent shall not interfere with the construction of the compound wall by the petitioners. However, we cannot give the petitioners any protection since it is not clear whether it is the petitioners' property or somebody else's property. That is a matter, which can be decided in a civil suit. We also make it clear that if in case the petitioners put up any construction, that will not improve their case in case of any dispute being raised by the revenue authority. The writ petition is closed. P.R. Raman, Judge P. Bhavadasan, Judge sb.