IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS SATURDAY, THE 30TH JANUARY 2010 / 10TH MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 2393 of 2010(Y) ----------------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SASIKUMAR, S/O.DIWAKARAN, KALARITHARA HOUSE, CHERAMANKULANGARA, ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.P.VINODKUMAR SRI.SUSHANTH.J. RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ALAPPUZHA. 3. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, DPT.OF CRIMES DETACHMENT, ALAPPUZHA. 4. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ALAPPUZHA NORTH POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA. 5. SURESH KUMAR, S/O.DIWAKARAN, KALARITHARA HOUSE, CHERAMANKULANGARA, ALAPPUZHA. R1 TO R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SHRI P.N.SUKUMARAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. M. JOSEPH & M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. -------------------------------------------------- W.P(C). NO. 2393 OF 2010 Y --------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 30th January, 2010 JUDGMENT K.M. Joseph, J. Petitioner seeks a mandamus directing respondents 1 and 2 to ensure that the 3rd respondent is not harassing the petitioner as the dispute is with regard to one of purely civil in nature. 2. Briefly put, the case of the petitioner is as follows: Petitioner is the sole owner of a property which he obtained as per Ext.P1 Partition Deed. The fifth respondent is his brother. They are in inimical terms on the basis of a dispute regarding pathway. The fifth respondent attacked the petitioner. Petitioner filed Ext.P2 petition. Thereafter the matter was settled. It is stated that the petitioner has intended to sell his property. He shifted to a rental house. Ext.P3 is the rent agreement. A complaint was filed on behalf of the mother, it is alleged and the petitioner was called to the Police Station. It is stated that the third respondent made the petitioner to sign an WPC.NO.2393/2010 Y 2 agreement that he will not sell the property and that he will permit the fifth respondent or anybody under him to use the property of the petitioner at their will. Petitioner filed Ext.P4 petition. 3. We heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader. Learned Government Pleader would submit that actually a petition was received from the petitioner himself stating that his fence was destroyed by the fifth respondent. They were called to the Police Station and thereafter the matter was settled between the parties. It is, however, specifically submitted that no agreement as alleged by the petitioner has been executed, and that it is stated that the petitioner will not be harassed. We record the submissions and close the Writ Petition. Sd/= K.M. JOSEPH, JUDGE Sd/= M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JUDGE kbk. // True Copy // PS to Judge