IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN MONDAY, THE 10TH JANUARY 2011 / 20TH POUSHA 1932 WP(C).No. 708 of 2011(K) ---------------------- PETITIONER : --------------------- GOPALAKRISHNA PILLAI, PONNARA KIZHAKKATHIL, PARIMANAM, NEENDAKARA P.O., KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM. BY ADVS. SRI.PRATHEESH.P SRI. K.SIJU RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KOLLAM-691010. 2. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHAVARA, KOLLAM-691583. 3. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHAVARA, KOLLAM-691583. 4. KRISHNAN UNNI, S/O.UNNI KRISHNAN, LEKSHMI NIVAS, PARIMANAM, NEENDAKARA P.O., KARUNAGAPPALLY, PIN-691582. 5. USHA, W/O.LATE UNNIKRISHNAN, LEKSHMI NIVAS, PARIMANA, NEENDAKARA, KOLLAM-691582. R1 TO R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. T.K. VIPINDAS THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Mn R.BASANT & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------- WPC No.708 of 2011 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 10th January, 2011 JUDGMENT Basant, J. The petitioner has come to this Court seeking directions under Article 226 of the Constitution. He perceives threat to his life and person. Called upon to explain the threat, the counsel explains that the fourth respondent is an adjacent property owner. The fourth respondent is restraining the petitioner from entering into his property. Evidently, there is dispute between the petitioner and the fourth respondent about their respective rights for enjoyment of adjacent properties. That dispute cannot obviously be resolved in this proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a property dispute, Civil Court is the proper forum that the parties must approach and seek directions. The person standing on the disputed boundary cannot lament that his life is in danger and seek police protection thus effectively frustrating the options available to the adjacent WPC No.708/2011 2 property owner. We are not persuaded to agree that any directions under Article 226 can need or deserves to be issued to the police considering the nature of the disputes between the parties. With the observation that the petitioner, if he has a grievance about the illegal interference with his right to enjoy the property, must approach the Civil Court for the redressal of his grievance, this writ petition is dismissed. R.BASANT JUDGE K.SURENDRA MOHAN JUDGE css/