IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD NOVEMBER 2010 / 12TH KARTHIKA 1932 WP(C).No. 31772 of 2010(V) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- KURIYADAN MARIYAM,W/O.ABDUL SAMAD, AGED 48 YEARS,VELLARVALLI AMSOM DESOM, P.O.VELLARVALLI,PERAVOOR,THALASSERY TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.M.RAMESH CHANDER SMT.K.A.SANJEETHA RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KANNUR-670001. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PERAVOOR POLICE STATION-670673. 3. KURIYADAN ABUBACKER @ VALIYA BAPPUTTY, AGED 58 YEARS,KURIYADAN HOUSE,VELLARVALLI AMSOM, DESOM,P.O.VELLARVALLI,PERAVOOR-670673. 4. KURIYADAN MUHAMMED,S/O.ALI HASSAN, AGED 50 YEARS,URIYADAN HOUSE,P.O.VELLARVALLI, PERAVOOR-670 673. R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.T.K.VIPINDAS. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.M.JOSEPH & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. ------------------------------------------------------ W.P.(C) No.31772 of 2010-V ---------------------------------------------- Dated, this the 3rd day of November, 2010 J U D G M E N T K.M.Joseph, J. Petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following relief: “to issue a writ of mandamus directing or compelling the respondents 1 and 2 to afford necessary and adequate police protection to the petitioner, her family and the workers for the protection of the house in RS No.26/1 and 26/2 of Vellarvalli Panchayath, Peravoor amsom as per Ext.P2 building permit.” 2. Briefly put, the case of the petitioner is as follows: Petitioner is the owner in occupation of 25 cents of land. She obtained the property as per Ext.P1 gift deed executed by her father. Petitioner's husband is a coolie worker. They are now residing in a rented house. They filed application before the panchayat for building permit which is sanctioned by Ext.P2 after due verification. They started digging a well as a first step. There were obstructions by respondents 3 and 4. The 4th respondent is the brother of the WPC 31772/2010 -2- petitioner and the 3rd respondent is the father's brother's son. They have no right over the property. There is no civil dispute. There cannot be any dispute also. It is also stated that respondents 3 and 4 along with henchmen formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and criminally intimidated the petitioner. 3. Learned Government Pleader was asked to get instruction. He would submit that petitioner claims title to 25 cents. But, he would submit that, there is no demarcating boundary between the property of the petitioner and respondents 3 and 4 and the party respondents have a case that the petitioner is encroaching into their property for carrying out the construction. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is armed with permit and that if the party respondents have any complaint they should go to the Municipality and challenge the permit. 5. We would think that the petitioner has alternate remedy by way of approaching competent Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in fact, submits that the WPC 31772/2010 -3- obstruction is by respondents 3 and 4. No doubt, in the pleading it is stated that there is encroachment by respondents 3 and 4 and their henchmen. In the nature of the case, we would think that it is more appropriate that the petitioner is relegated to approach the competent Civil Court. We, however, direct that, if the petitioner complains of commission of any cognizable offence by respondents 3 and 4 or any other person at their instance before the 2nd respondent, the 2nd respondent shall take action on the same in accordance with law. (K.M.JOSEPH) JUDGE. (M.C.HARI RANI) JUDGE. MS