IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN THURSDAY, THE 26TH MAY 2011 / 5TH JYAISHTA 1933 WP(C).No. 14160 of 2011(T) --------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- ASHRAF, S/O.MYTHEEN, REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, SUNITHA, W/O.ASHRAF, PARAKKASERIYIL HOUSE, MANNANCHERRI, ALAPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001. 2. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ALAPUZHA - 688 001. 3. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MARAIKULAM POLICE STATION, ALAPUZHA- 688 001. 4. AYSHA BEEVI, W/O.ABDUL KHADER KUNJU, THEKKE THEEYASSERIL HOUSE, WARD NO.6, MANNANCHERRY VILLAGE, ALAPUZHA- 688 001. R1 TO R3 BY GOVT.PLEADER SMT.C.M.CHARISMA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/05/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs R. BASANT & K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 14160 of 2011-T ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 26th day of May, 2011 JUDGMENT Basant,J. The petitioner has come to this Court seeking issue of directions under Art.226 of the Constitution to respondents 2 and 3, police officials under the 1st respondent - State, to enable her to construct a compound wall. The 4th respondent, a neighbour, is allegedly raising objections against the construction of the compound wall. 2. According to the petitioner, her husband purchased the property as per Ext.P1 sale deed dated 28/8/06. Admittedly, there are no stable disputes. In an attempt to ascertain the survey boundaries, the petitioner approached the survey authorities. Even the inspection by the survey officials was allegedly obstructed by the 4th respondent. The survey authorities have now ascertained the survey boundaries. The petitioner wants to put up a compound wall along the boundary so ascertained/shown by the survey officials. The 4th respondent is objecting to the same. 3. Why is the 4th respondent objecting to the construction W.P.(C) No. 14160 of 2011 -: 2 :- of the compound wall? Is there any dispute regarding boundary? Is there any dispute regarding right of way through the property? The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the survey authorities having shown the boundary, there can be no dispute regarding the actual boundary. He does not dispute the fact that there is some dispute regarding a right of way. 4. We do not intend to express any opinion on the acceptability of the contentions regarding the said dispute. Suffice it to say that we are satisfied that the disputes are not ones which can be resolved by the police or by this Court in proceedings under Art.226 of the Constitution by issuing directions to the police. The petitioner must certainly approach the civil court to get her right to put up a compound wall over the boundary so ascertained by the survey authorities. This Court cannot issue any directions under Art.226 of the Constitution to enable the petitioner to put up a compound wall over such boundary. 5. This writ petition is, in these circumstances, dismissed. But we make it clear that we have not intended to express any opinion on the acceptability of the contentions of the petitioner W.P.(C) No. 14160 of 2011 -: 3 :- regarding her right to put up a compound wall over the survey boundary identified by the survey authorities. Sd/- R. BASANT (Judge) Sd/- K. SURENDRA MOHAN (Judge) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge