IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD JULY 2008 / 1ST SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 22155 of 2008(K) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ VAMADEVAN, S/O.KESAVAN, KODIYAZHIKATH VEEDU, THAZHAMEL MURI, ANCHAL VILLAGE PATHANAPURAM TALUK. BY ADV. SMT.MINI.S.DAS RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDEDNT OF POLICE KOLLAM. 2. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ANCHAL KOLLAM. 3. S.I. OF POLICE, ANCHAL, KOLLAM 4. VISWANATHAN ALIAS CHACHAN, VAYALILPUTHENVEEDU, PADINJATTINKARA, ANCHAL PO., KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SRI.BENJAMIN PAUL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & K.T.SANKARAN, JJ. ------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.22155 OF 2008 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of July, 2008 J U D G M E N T ~~~~~~~~~~~ Balakrishnan Nair, J. The petitioner is the owner of 125 cents of land in Edamulakkal Village. He is running a brick kiln there. The remaining property is cultivated by him. The 4th respondent is the neighbouring property owner. Though he has got other access to the road from his property, he is using the petitioner's property to reach the road. Though the petitioner has permitted him to use a boundary portion of the property as a pathway, he is walking through the middle of the property. When the petitioner objected to that, he is abusing and threatening the petitioner. The 4th respondent has destroyed the rubber plants and plantains raised by him. So, the petitioner filed Ext.P1 representation before the police seeking necessary protection. Alleging that the police has not taken any action, this writ is filed. W.P.(C) No.22155/2008 2 2. We notice that this is a case of alleged trespass by the neighbouring owner through the petitioner's property. He claims a right of way through the middle of the property. Therefore, the appropriate remedy for the petitioner is to approach the civil court and not to walk into the neighbouring police station. In view of the efficacious remedies available to him before the civil court, it is unnecessary to entertain this writ petition. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed without prejudice to the contentions of the petitioner and his right to move the competent civil court for appropriate reliefs. (K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE) (K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE) ps