IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM FRIDAY, THE 5TH AUGUST 2011 / 14TH SRAVANA 1933 WP(C).No. 20800 of 2011(Y) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- 1. SUMATHY, AGED 55 YEARS, W/O. PEETHAMBARAN, KUZHIYANATHARAYIL, EROOR P.O., TRIPUNITHURA-682 306, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 2. PRINCE, AGED 33 YEARS, S/O. PEETHAMBARAN, KUZHIYANATHARAYIL, EROOR P.O., TRIPUNITHURA-682 306, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.C.A.CHACKO, SRI.N.A.SHAFEEK. RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, KOCHI CITY, ERNAKULAM - 682 011. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, HILL PALACE POLICE STATION, TRIPUNITHURA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 682 031. 3. SUNIL, S/O. MANI, AGED 40 YEARS, KUZHIYANATHARAYIL, EROOR P.O., TRIPUNITHURA-682 306, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. M.R. SABU R3 BY ADVS. SRI.T.B.THANKAPPAN, SRI.T.T.HARIKUMAR. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/08/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.20800/2011 Y APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE RELEASE DEED NO.1307/1/2000 OF SRO, TRIPUNITHURA. P2: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DTD.27/07/2011 GIVEN BY THE 1ST PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.20800 of 2011 ------------------------------- Dated this the 5th day of August, 2011. J U D G M E N T PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE, J. The petitioners have approached this Court alleging, what they describe as harassment by the 2nd respondent at the instance of the 3rd respondent. As directed by us, the learned Government Pleader has taken instructions from the 2nd respondent. It is submitted by the learned Government Pleader that the accusations of harassment levelled against the 2nd respondent are absolutely unfounded. A complaint was filed by the 3rd respondent alleging that the 2nd petitioner cut and removed certain trees standing on the 3rd respondent's property. The petitioners were summoned to the police station only in the wake of the above complaint, so that the parties could be questioned. It became clear that there was civil dispute existing, which is a boundary dispute, between the parties. Accordingly, both sides were advised to have resolution of the boundary dispute through the process 2 W.P.(C) No.20800 of 2011 of the civil court by facilitating a proper measurement with the assistance of the Survey and Revenue authorities. Learned counsel for the respondents would also practically endorse all the submissions of the learned Government Pleader as to what has happened. Though learned counsel for the petitioners sought for time, we are not inclined to grant time. We are convinced that, the submissions of the learned Government Pleader, on the basis of instructions from the police, are substantially correct. No case is made out for issuance of any direction as sought for. We record the assurance given by the learned Government Pleader that the 2nd respondent will not intervene in the pending dispute between the petitioners and the 3rd respondent. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE ami/