IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR MONDAY, THE 3RD MARCH 2008 / 13TH PHALGUNA 1929 WP(C).No. 861 of 2007(C) ------------------------ PETITIONER: ------------ A.J. VARGHESE, AVIYOTTU VEEDU, NEAR L.M.S. HOSPITAL, KUNDARA P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.N.ACHUTHA KURUP (SR.) SRI.B.S.SWATHY KUMAR SRI.BINDU SREEKUMAR SRI.K.G.RENGANATH RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO HOME (C) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE PRINCIPAL SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KOTTARAKKARA. 3. GEORGE KUNJACHAN, S/O. KOSHY GEORGE, MANAPPALLY THADATHIL PEEDIKAYIL VEEDU, MEENPIDIPARA, PULAMON P.O., KOTTARAKKARA. BY ADV. SRI.BABU CHERUKARA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC 861/07 -2- PETITIONERS EXHIBITS : EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN SLP 4790/90 DATED 24.8.95 OF THE HON. SUPREME COURT OF INDIA EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE SECOND RESPONDENT DT.27.12.2006. EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE DOCUMENT NO.3232/1963 OF THE SUB REGISTRY KOTTARAKKARA EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF THE DOCUMENT NO.2715/1965 OF SUB REGISTRY, KOTTARAKKARA EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF THE DOCUMENT NO.2698/1964 OF SUB-REGISTRY, KOTTARAKKARA EXT.P6 TRUE COPY OF THE PLOT INSPECTION NOTE PREPARED ON 25.2.1988 IN RESPECT OF THE PROPERTIES OF THE PETITIONER PREPARED BY THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX & SALES TAX OFFICER, KOTTARAKKARA EXT.P7 TRUE COPY OF THE CHALAN RECEIPT DT.14.8.96 FOR THE REMITTANCE OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX BY THE PETITIONER EXT.P8 TRUE COPY OF THE CHALAN RECEIPT DT.NIL FOR THE REMITTANCE OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX BY THE PETITIONER's EXT.P9 TRUE COPY OF RECEIPT NO.29 DT.8.2.2001 ISSUED FROM ELAMBALLUR VIILLAGE FOR THE REMITTANCE OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX BY THE PETITIONER EXT.P10TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT NO.16884 DT.25.8.2004 ISSUED FROM EMAMBALLUR VILLAGE TO THE PETITIONER FOR THE REMITTANCE OF THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX EXT.P11TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR THE YEARS 1981-82 TO 1987-88 DT.3.3.1988 IN RESPECT OF THE PETITIONER EXT.P12TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR THE YEAR 1994-95 DT. 21.2.2000 IN RESPECT OF THE PETITIONER EXT.P13TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR THE YEAR 1998-99 DT.3.2.2004 IN RESPECT OF THE PETITIONER EXT.P14TRUE COPY OF THE RECTIPT NO.31 DT.20.1.2000 ISSUED FROM THE VILLAGE OFFICE KOTTARAKKARA TO THE PETITIONER EXT.P15TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT NO.16481 DT.13.4.2002 ISSUED FROM KOTTARAKKARA VILLAGE OFFICE TO THE PETITIONER WPC 861/07 EXT.P16TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT NO.11402 DT.26.5.2006 ISSUED FROM KOTTARAKKARA VILLAGE OFFICE TO THE PETITIONER EXT.P17TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.638/06 OF KOTTARAKKARA POLICE STATION RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : EXT.R3(a) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN CRP NO.105 OF 1989 DT.19.1.1990 OF THE HON. HIGH COURT OF KERALA EXT.R3(b) TRUE COPY OF THE FIR WOTH FI STATEMENT IN CRIME NO.632 D5.27.5.2006 OF KOTTARAKKARA POLICE STATION EXT.R3(c) TRUE COPY OF THE DISCHARGE CERTIFICATE OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT FROM TALUK HEARD QUARTERS HOSPITAL, KOTTARAKKARA DT.7.6.2006 EXT.R3(d) TRUE COPY OF THE PASSPORT IN THE NAME OF R3 TRUE COPY PA TO JUDGE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & P.N.RAVINDRAN, JJ. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Writ Petition (C) No.861 of 2007-C -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Judgment Balakrishnan Nair, J. The petitioner has approached this court, seeking the following relief : “issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the second respondent to provide adequate and effective police protection to prevent the third respondent and his men from trespassing into the petitioner's property extending 4.52.058 acres comprised in Sy.Nos.436/1A2, 436/1A4, 436/D and 436/1E of formerly Melila village and presently Kottarakkara village from preventing the petitioner from taking yield from the said property and prevent danger to the lives of the petitioner, other members of his family and workers at the hands of 3rd respondent and his men.” The petitioner claims title and possession over 4.52.058 acres of land comprised in the survey numbers quoted above. The father of the third respondent set up a claim of tenancy over the said property. The said claim WPC 861/07 2 was found against by the statutory authorities. It was affirmed by this court also by Ext.R3(a) order in the revision filed under S.103 of the Land Reforms Act. The SLP attempted against that order was dismissed by the Apex Court by Ext.P1 order. The petitioner submits, even thereafter, the third respondent and his men are trying to trespass into the property and to obstruct him from taking the usufructs. They are threatening the petitioner and his workmen. In the above background, this Writ Petition is filed seeking the aforementioned relief. 2. The learned Government Pleader upon instruction submitted that the writ petitioner is filed on the apprehension that there may be trespass, mischief etc. 3. The third respondent has filed a counter affidavit, disputing the claims of the petitioner and asserting that he is in possession of the disputed property. The petitioner has filed a reply affidavit, reiterating his contentions in the Writ Petition. 4. Having regard to the nature of the relief sought, the petitioner has to move the competent civil court for appropriate orders. If the civil court's orders are not obeyed, the said court has necessary powers to address the police to render assistance to the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner WPC 861/07 3 prayed that protection to his life may be ordered. We feel that the threat to the petitioner and his workmen arises only when the petitioner asserts his right over the property. Therefore, the alleged threat is an off shoot of the dispute regarding the possession of the property. If protection to the life of the petitioner is ordered, the same is likely to be abused and used to tilt the balance in favour of the petitioner in the civil dispute. In view of the above position, no relief can be granted to the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed without prejudice to the contentions of the petitioner and his right to move the competent civil court for appropriate reliefs. The contentions of the third respondent are also kept open. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR,JUDGE 03.03.2008 P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE sta WPC 861/07 4