IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD JULY 2008 / 1ST SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 18505 of 2008(C) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ MADHU KARTHA, S/O.G.N.NARAYANAN KARTHA, AGED 53, THOTTAPATTU HOUSE, MUDAVOOR KARA, VELLURKUNNAM VILLAGE, NOW RESIDING AT SANKARAMANGALAM VIP COLONY, COURT ROAD, PERUMBAVOOR. BY ADV. SRI.P.R.VENKETESH RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, PERUMBAVOOR. 2. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KURUPPAMPADI. 3. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KURUPPAMPADI. 4. PADMANABHAN, S/O.VELAYUDHAN, POONURU HOUSE, ASAMANNUR KARA, ASAMANNUR VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK. 5. DAS, S/O.PADMANABHAN, DO. DO. DO. 6. JAYAN, S/O.PADMANABHAN, DO. DO. DO. BY ADV. SRI.DINESH R.SHENOY FOR R4 TO 6 SRI.V.V.UNNIKRISHNAN FOR R4 TO 6 GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SRI.BENJAMIN PAUL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) No.18505/2008 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXTS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.2796/97 DT.8.10.1997 OF SRO, KURUPPUMPADI. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE RECEIPT EVIDENCING PAYMENT OF LAND TAX IN RESPECT OF THE PROPERTY FOR THE YEAR 2008-2009 DT.15.5.2008 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, ASAMANNUR VILLAGE. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE LOCATION PLAN ATTACHED TO THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE ASAMANNUR VILLAGE OFFICER. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT BY THE PETITIONER ON 9.6.2008. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P5(a): COPY OF THE RECEIPT EVIDENCING RECEIPT OF EXT.P5 COMPLAINT IN THE OFFICE OF THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KURUPPUMPADI. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT LODGED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT ON 9.6.2008. EXT.P6(a): COPY OF THE RECEIPT EVIDENCING RECEIPT OF EXT.P6 AND ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXTS: EXT.R4(a): COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S.NO.231/2008, MUNSIFF COURT, PERUMBAVOOR. EXT.R4(b): COPY OF THE REPORT OF ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER K.ARUN TOGETHER WITH ROUGH SKETCH FILED IN I.A.NO.1857/2008 IN O.S.NO.231/2008, MUNSIFF COURT, PERUMBAVOOR. //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE. K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & K.T.SANKARAN, JJ. ------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.18505 OF 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of July, 2008 J U D G M E N T ~~~~~~~~~~~ Balakrishnan Nair, J. The petitioner claims he is the owner of 1.25 acres of land in Asamannur Village. The respondents 4 to 6 are neighbouring land owners. When the petitioner goes there to take usufructs they are threatening him with lethal weapons. The petitioner submits the respondents 4 to 6 and his brother are in rival political camps. Because of their ill will towards his brother, the petitioner is being unnecessarily harassed by them. The petitioner has preferred Exts.P4, P5 and P6 representations before the respondents 1 to 3 seeking police protection. Alleging that, they did not take any effective action, this writ petition is filed. 2. The 4th respondent has filed a counter affidavit stating that the property was assigned to the petitioner as a security for a loan of Rs. 35,000/- availed of by him from the petitioner. The petitioner was always receiving interest for the same. The property always remained in the possession of the 4th respondent. Now the petitioner wants to take the property and therefore this writ W.P.(C) No.18505/2008 2 petition is filed after filing representations, containing false averments, before the police officers. The 4th respondent has already filed Ext.R4(a) suit before the competent civil court seeking appropriate orders against the petitioner. 3. The petitioner, in answer, submitted that, the suit, Ext.R4(a), is filed only after service of the notice in this writ petition on the 4th respondent. It is filed only for the purpose of making out a case that there is a civil dispute between him and the 4th respondent. Having regard to the nature of the allegations and counter allegations, we feel that, the police cannot be asked to render protection to the petitioner. He has to workout his remedy before the competent civil court. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed without prejudice to the contentions of the petitioner and his right to move other forums for appropriate reliefs. (K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE) (K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE) ps