IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI MONDAY, THE 11TH AUGUST 2008 / 20TH SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 36823 of 2007(H) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ KEELATH PUTHIYAPURAYIL SHADULI, NANIYOOR, KOLACHERY P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.V.SOHAN SMT.SREEJA SOHAN.K. RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. C.K.AHAMMED, S/O.IBRAHIM, NALAMPEEDIKA, KOLACHERI P.O., PATTAYAM, KANNUR DISTRICT. 2. C.K.HAMSA, S/O.IBRAHIM, -DO- 3. C.K.ABOOBACKER, S/O.IBRAHIM, -DO- -DO- 4. KUNNUMBRATH MAMMAD, S/O.MOIDEEN, NANIYOOR, KOLACHERI P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT 670 601 5. KAIPRATH MUSTHAFA, S/O.SOOPI, KOLACHERI MUKKU, NANIYOOR VILLAGE, P.O.KOLACHERI, KANNUR DISTRICT - 670 601. 6. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VALAPATTANAM, KANNUR DISTRICT. 7. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VALAPATTANAM, KANNUR DISTRICT. 8. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KANNUR. BY ADV. SRI.V.RAMKUMAR NAMBIAR FOR R1,4,5 GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SRI.BENJAMIN PAUL. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.36823/2007 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXTS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE DEED OF ASSIGNMENT EXECUTEDBY AYSUMMA IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER, DT.17.7.2004. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE DEED OF ASSIGNMENT WITH RESPECT TO 3 CENTS OF PROPERTY ON THE NORTHERN SIDE EXECUTED BY ABDU IN FAVOUR OF PETITIONER'S FATER, DT.14.3.1983. EXT.P3: COPY OFTHE DEED OF ASSIGNMENT WITHRESPECT TO THE 3 CENTS OBTAINED AS PER EXT.P2 TO THE PETITIONER, DT.14.12.1987. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE COMMON JUDGMENT INO.S.335/1995 AND O.S.364/1995 DT.22.12.1987. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN A.S.NO.38/2000 ON THE FILE OF THE SUBORDINATE JUDGE'S COURT, THALASSERY, DT.29.3.2003. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN O.S.NO.335/1995 ON THE FILE OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, KANNUR, DT.18.10.2004. EXT.P7: THE COMMISSIONER'S REPORT AND PLAN IN O.S.335/1995, DT.5.1.2004. EXT.P8: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 6TH RESPONDENT, DT.17.5.2007. EXT.P9: COPY OFTHE F.I.R DT.22.11.2007. EXT.P10: COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH SHOWN THE DESTROYED BUILDING OF THE SAW MILL OF THE PETITIONER. RESPONDENT'S EXTS: EXT.R1(a): COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE KOLACHERRY GRAMA PANCHAYAT ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER DT.15.10.2007. EXT.R1(b): COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT AND PETITION IN I.A.NO.2697/2006 IN O.S.NO.405/2006 OF MUNSIFFS COURT, KANNUR ALONG WITH ORDER DT.19.8.2006. EXT.R1(c): COPY OF THE FINAL ORDER IN I.ANO.2697/2006 IN O.S.NO.405/2006 OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT KANNUR, DT.20.2.2007. //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. ------------------------------------- W.P.(C). No.36823 OF 2007 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of August, 2008 J U D G M E N T ~~~~~~~~~~~ Balakrishnan Nair, J. The petitioner owns a Saw Mill. It is located in a property having an extent of 8 cents. The said property has been assigned to him as per Ext.P1. There is a dispute, between the petitioner and the respondents 1 to 5, regarding a portion of property, in which the petitioner used to store the timber logs. The matter is pending before the competent civil court, it is submitted. The petitioner claims he is entitled to run the Saw Mill without obstruction for the party respondents. He moved the police for protection. But, they did not take any effective action. Hence this writ petition. 2. The respondents 1 to 5 submitted that the dispute is only relating to the property, where the petitioner is attempting to store the wooden logs. Regarding the running of the Saw Mill, they have no objection, provided, he has got the necessary W.P.(C) No.36823/2007 2 licence from the Panchayat and clearances from the the statutory authorities. They have no intention to physically obstruct the functioning of the Mill, it is submitted. This submission is recorded. 4. If the respondents 1 to 5 are causing obstruction to the running of the Saw Mill, the petitioner may inform the 6th respondent. In that event, the 6th respondent shall remove the obstruction. But, it is clarified that the petitioner is entitled to run the Mill, if only, he is having the licence from the local Grama Panchayat and other statutory clearances, if any, required. In other words, the police protection will not enable the petitioner to run the unit, contrary to law. The writ petition is disposed of as above. (K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE) (M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE) ps