IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI WEDNESDAY, THE 25TH JUNE 2008 / 4TH ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 16657 of 2008(G) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ K.K.GOPINATHAN PILLAI, KADAVUNGAL VADAKKETHIL HOUSE, THEKKE MANKUZHIMURI, BHARANIKKAVU VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.M.POULOSE RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. MINI, KADAVUNGAL VADAKKETHIL HOUSE, THEKKE MANKUZHIMURI, BHARANIKKAVU VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 2. RATHNAMMA, KADAVUNGAL VADAKKETHIL HOUSE, THEKKE MANKUZHIMURI, BHARANIKKAVU VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 3. MANOJ, S/O.CHELLAPPAN PILLAI, KADAVUNGAL VADAKKETHIL HOUSE, THEKKE MANKUZHIMURI, BHARANIKKAVU VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 4. SIVAN PILLAI, S/O.NARAYANA PILLAI, SIVA VILASAM VEEDU, THEKKE MANKUZHIMURI, BHARANIKKAVU VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 5. SREENIVASAN PILLAI, S/O.NARAYANA PILLAI, SREEKAVYAM VEEDU, THEKKE MANKUZHIMURI, BHARANIKKAVU VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 6. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VALLIKKUNNAM, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.RASHEED C.NOORANAD FOR R1 TO 5 GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SRI.BENJAMIN PAUL. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) No.16657/2008 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXTS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DT.6.6.2007 BY THE COURT OF THE MUNSIFF, KAYAMKULAM IN O.SNO.506/2001. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE DECREE DT.6.6.2007 BY THE COURTOF THE MUNSIFF, KAYAMKULAM IN O.S.506/2001. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE KYCHIT DT.3.4.2008 BT THE AMIN BEFORE THE COURT OF THE MUNSIFF, KAYAMKULAM IN O.S.506/2001. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE PETIITON DT.5.5.2008 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 6TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY 6TH RESPONDENT ACKNOWLEDGING EXT.P4. //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. --------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 16657 OF 2008 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 25th day of June, 2008 J U D G M E N T ~~~~~~~~~~~ Balakrishnan Nair, J. The petitioner is the owner of a property having an extent of 4.95 ares of land in Re-Survey No.381/17 of Bharanikavu village. When, the respondents 1 to 3 tried to trespass into the said property, the petitioner moved the civil court and the suit was decreed. Ext.P1 is the judgment and the Ext.P2 is the decree. The said decree was executed as evident from Ext.P3. The boundary of the property was demarcated and the petitioner erected barbed wire fencing with the assistance of the court. The same was done on 3.4.2008. But, the respondents 1 to 5 are not ready to respect the orders of the civil court. They cut the barbed wire fencing and trespassed into the property of the petitioner. Thereupon, the petitioner filed Ext.P4 representation before the police. As per the prayer in that petition he is requesting the Sub Inspector of Police, W.P.(C) No.16657/2008 2 5th respondent herein, to inspect the site, so that, the said officer could convince himself of the illegal actions of the party respondents. He prays for necessary police protection including that of women police constable to put up the destroyed barbed wire fencing. 2. This Court cannot adjudicate whether the party respondents have violated the decree of the civil court and on finding violation remedy the same by issuing appropriate direction. The police also have no such power or authority in this matter. In the absence of failure of duty from the part of police, we cannot issue any direction to them as sought for by the petitioner. The petitioner has to move the Execution court and seek appropriate orders including direction to the police to render assistance to the petitioner, so that, he can put up the barbed wire fencing. The police cannot be conceded the authority to decide an allegation regarding violation of a decree. None of the statutes in force in India authorise the police to do that. Therefore, the prayer of the petitioner for mandamus to the police to give adequate protection as requested in Ext.P4 cannot be granted. W.P.(C) No.16657/2008 3 Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of, without prejudice to the contentions of the petitioner and his right to move the competent civil court for appropriate reliefs. (K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE) (M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE) ps