IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN MONDAY, THE 21ST MARCH 2011 / 30TH PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 16155 of 2009(L) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- 1. RUGMINI AMMA, W/O. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, PONNOTH VEEDU, VELLOOR AMSOM DESOM, ATHOLI P.O., QUILANDY, KOZHIKODE. 2. MEENAKSHI AMMA, W/O. MADHAVAN NAIR, PONNOTH VEEDU, VELLOOR AMSOM DESOM, ATHOLI P.O., QUILANDY, KOZHIKODE. BY ADVS. SRI.V.V.ASOKAN SRI.C.K.SAJEEV RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KOYILANDY. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ATHOLI. 3. ATHOLI GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, ATHOLI,. 4. GOKULDAS C.K., S/O. LATE APPUKUTTY MASTER, KARTHIKA HOUSE, VELLOOR AMSOM DESOM, ATHOLI P.O., QUILANDY. 5. C.V. RAVEENDRAN, S/O. LATE KUNHIRAMAN, THUSHARA HOUSE, VELLOOR AMSOM DESOM, ATHOLI P.O., QUILANDY. 6. SREEHARI, S/O. LATE THAROOTHAN, YAMUNA HOUSE, VELLOOR AMSOM DESOM, ATHOLI P.O., QUILANDY. WP(C).No. 16155 of 2009(L) ------------------------------------ 7. BHASKARAN NAIR, RETIRED DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, S/O. LATE KUNHIRAMAN NAIR, CHANDUVEETTIL HOUSE,VELLOOR AMSOM DESOM, ATHOLI P.O., QUILADY. 8. GOVINDAN, S/O. UNNEERIKUTTY, VADAKKEPONGATTU HOUSE, VELLOOR AMSOM DESOM, ATHOLI P.O., QUILANDY. 9. SANTHOSH , S/O.BALAN, ILLATH (KAYYILLATHUTTU) HOUSE, VELLOOR AMSOM DESOM, ATHOLI P.O., QUILANDY 10. SIVARAMAN, S/O.UNNEERIKUTTY, KAYYILATHUTTU HOUSE, VELLOOR AMSOM DESOM, ATHOLI P.O., QUILANDY. 11. MAMUKOYA, S/O.S/O.PATHUMMA, PONGOTTUTHAZHE HOUSE, VELLOOR AMSOM DESOM, ATHOLI P.O., QUILANDY. 12. DIVAKARAN, S/O.UNNEERIKUTTY, VADAKKEPONGOTTU HOUSE, VELLOOR AMSOM DESOM, ATHOLI P.O., QUILANDY. 13. KUMARAN, S/O.UNNEERIKUTTY, VADAKKEPONGOTTU HOUSE , VELLOOR AMSOM DESOM, ATHOLI P.O., QUILADY. R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.C.M.CHARISMA R3 BY ADV. SRI.R.K.VENU NAYAR R4, 6 TO 13 BY ADV. SRI.K.A.JALEEL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 16155 of 2009(L) ----------------------------------- APPENDIX ----------------- PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS ----------------------------------- EXT.P1. COPY OF THE SITE PLAN EXT.P1(A). COPY OF THE RECEIPT EVIDENCE REMITTANCE OF PERMIT APPLICATION FEE EXT.P2. COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 17232/2008. EX.P3. COPY OF THE PERMIT ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT - PANCHAYATH EXT.P4. COPY OF THE RECEIPT EVIDENCING REMITTANCE OF PERMIT FEE EXT.P5. COPY OF THE PROPOSAL TO REVOKE THE PERMIT. EXT.P6. COPY of the REPLY SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P7. COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) NO.23494 OF 2008 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. EXT.P8. COPY OF THE REVOCATION ORDER PASSED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT- PANCHAYATH EXT.P9. COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. EXT.P10. COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P10(A). COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT EVIDENCING SUBMISSION OF EXT.P10 BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS : NIL ------------------------------- / TRUE COPY / P.A. TO JUDGE VK R.BASANT & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------- WPC No.16155 of 2009 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 21st March, 2011 JUDGMENT Basant, J. The petitioners have come to this Court with this petition for issue of directions under Article 226 of the Constitution to respondents 1 and 2, police officials. 2. According to the petitioners, they own and are in possession of a large extent of property. They want to construct a compound wall on the boundaries of their property. Respondents 4 to 13, local inhabitants are raising illegal objections against the construction of the compound wall. Petitioners have been granted due permit by the third respondent Panchayat to construct the compound wall. The Panchayat had later revoked the permit, but the Tribunal for Local Self Government had annulled the order of revocation. 3. Respondents have been served, but there is no appearance for the respondents. The learned counsel for the petitioners fairly submits that the petitioners had gone WPC No.16155/2009 2 to the civil court for a decree of injunction against the respondents against illegal obstruction raised by them. That was dismissed. An appeal was filed before the Appellate Court and that appeal was later not prosecuted and was dismissed. According to the petitioners, in view of the obstruction by respondents 4 to 13, they had decided to leave further areas outside the compound wall for use as pathway. But, still, respondents 4 to 13 are not permitting the petitioners to construct the compound wall. It is in these circumstances that protection is claimed. 4. This petition was filed as early as on 10.6.2009. The same was admitted on 11.6.2009. Notice was ordered to the respondents. 5. Service is complete, but there is no appearance for any respondents other than respondents 1 and 2 who are represented by the learned Government Pleader. According to the learned Government Pleader, there is no law and order situation warranting action by the police. 6. On 11.6.2009, when the matter came up for hearing, no interim orders were issued. A period of about two years has elapsed. The matter is not brought up for WPC No.16155/2009 3 hearing after 11.6.2009. Today the matter comes up as the same is listed by the Registry for final disposal of old pending matters. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that notwithstanding the pious conduct of the petitioners leaving further areas for use as road before constructing the compound wall, respondents 4 to 13 are persisting the objection raised by them against the construction of the compound wall. 8. We have heard the counsel. We have perused the records. There is evidently a dispute about the width of the pathway and this petition is filed to overcome the objection against the construction of the compound wall. The dispute evidently is about the width of the pathway and the line along which the petitioner is entitled to construct the compound wall. This is evident from the offer/alleged conduct of the petitioners to leave sufficient width for the pathway and to construct the compound wall after leaving such pathway. Admittedly, the suit filed by the petitioners against respondents 4 to 13 has been dismissed and the challenge taken against the dismissal of WPC No.16155/2009 4 the suit has been given up. 9. We take note of the submissions of the learned Government Pleader that there is no law and order situation warranting police action. We are satisfied in these circumstances that the dispute between the petitioners on the one hand and respondents 4 to 13 on the other about the width of the pathway and right of the petitioner to construct a compound wall cannot be decided in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution. That dispute cannot be resolved by the police. Parties must get the dispute resolved in accordance with law by resorting to the civil proceedings. 10. This petition is in these circumstances dismissed with the above observations. R.BASANT JUDGE K.SURENDRA MOHAN JUDGE css/