IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN FRIDAY, THE 25TH MARCH 2011 / 4TH CHAITHRA 1933 WP(C).No. 32969 of 2009(M) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- GILBERT PRINCE,S/O.LATE PALLAYAN, AGED 47 YEARS,AKSHAYA BHAVAN, T.C.NO.11/744 (A),KOWADIYAR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADVS. SRI.BINOY VASUDEVAN, SMT.P.G.BABITHA. RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MUSEUM POLICE STATION,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. TALUK SURVEYOR, TALUK OFFICE,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. VILLAGE OFFICER, VILLAGE OFFICE,PATTOM P.O.,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. K.SIVARAJAN, KUNNIL HOUSE,AYODHYA NAGAR,NEAR LAYOLA COLLEGE, SREEKARIYAM P.O.,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. SANAL KUMAR,S/O.SIVARAJAN, KUNNIL HOUSE,AYODHYA NAGAR,NEAR LAYOLA COLLEGE, SREEKARIYAM P.O.,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. C.M. CHARISMA R4 & R5 BY ADV. SRI.R.V.SREEJITH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.32969/2009 M APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE DOCUMENT NOS.762/07 OF S.R.O.PATTOM. P2: COPY OF THE DOCUMENT NOS.4630/07 OF S.R.O.,PATTOM. P3: COPY OF THE DOCUMENT BEARING NO.4631/07 OF S.R.O., PATTOM. P4: COPY OF THE ROUGH SKETCH OF THE PETITIONER'S PROPERTY. P5: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 19/03/2009 IN WP(C) NO.8845/09. P6: COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.H 6-8391/08 DTD. 26/09/2009 ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT. P7: COPY OF THE DECREE IN O.S.NO.884/00 DTD. 28/05/2004. P8: COPY OF THE DETAILED REPRESENTATION BEFORE THE SECOND RESPONDENT DTD. 03/11/2009. P9: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT BEFORE THE FIRST RESPONDENT DTD. 03/11/2009. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: R4(A): COPY OF THE PATTA OF 2 ½ CENTS IN SY.NO.2174 ISSUED BY THE LAND TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DTD. 28/05/1990. R4(B): COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.1518 DTD.15TH APRIL, 2000. R4(C): COPY OF THE ORIGINAL RECEIPT DTD. 08/10/2009 EVIDENCING THE PAYMENT OF PROPERTY TAX FOR ONE CENT IN SY.NO.2175. R4(D): COPY OF THE PLAINT, I.E. O.S.884/2000 INITIALLY FILED BEFORE THE VACATION COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R4(E): COPY OF THE COMMISSION REPORT ALONG WITH THE SKETCH. R4(F): COPY OF THE COMPROMISE PETITION DTD. 20/08/2003. R4(G): COPY OF THE COMPROMISE JUDGMENT AND DECREE. R4(H): COPY OF THE E.P.NO.299/2006 IN O.S.NO.884/2000. R4(I): COPY OF THE EXECUTION APPLICATION IN E.P.299/2006.] /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss R.BASANT & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------- WPC No.32969 of 2009 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 25th March, 2011 JUDGMENT Basant, J. This petition has been filed by the petitioner claiming issue of directions to the first respondent - a police official to afford police protection to respondents 2 and 3. 2. According to the petitioner, he had obtained Ext.P5 judgment on 19.3.2009 from a learned Single Judge of this Court. To carry out the directions in Ext.P5 within a period of eight weeks as directed, the second respondent therein, i.e. the Additional Tahsildar, Thiruvananthapuram had issued necessary directions to respondents 2 and 3. When respondents 2 and 3 went to the property to take necessary steps, respondents 2 and 3 were allegedly obstructed illegally by respondents 4 and 5. It is in these circumstances that the petitioner has come to this Court with the present prayer for granting police protection to respondents 2 and 3. 3. Respondents 4 and 5 have entered appearance. WPC No.32969/2011 2 Counsel argues that there is absolutely no bonafides in the request made by the petitioner. First of all, the counsel submits that the Additional Tahsildar, Thiruvananthapuram, the second respondent in Ext.P5 has no grievance that there has been any illegal obstruction on the part of respondents 4 and 5 making it difficult/impossible for him to carry out directions in Ext.P5. Though the petitioner states that second and third respondents have been illegally obstructed, they have not so far raised any such complaint. In these circumstances, the learned counsel for respondents 4 and 5 submits that there is absolutely no necessity to issue any directions under Article 226 of the Constitution. 4. The learned Government Pleader, after taking instructions from the first respondent submits that respondent Nos.2, 3 or the petitioner have never complained of any illegal obstruction by respondents 4 and 5. This petition was filed as early as on 16.11.2009. Notice was ordered on 17.11.2009. No interim orders have been issued. The matter was posted WPC No.32969/2011 3 last on 30.11.2009. The matter has come up now along with other old matters pending unnecessarily, as listed by the Registry. 5. What has happened to the direction in Ext.P5? Was any complaint made to the Court that the direction therein which was to be complied with within eight weeks of the judgment had not been complied with ? Has any further direction has been issued by that Court ? No satisfactory answers are forthcoming to these queries. In the instant case, we note that the second respondent in Ext.P5 i.e. the Additional Tahsildar or the second and third respondents herein i.e. the Taluk Surveyor and the Village Officer have no grievance that there has been any illegal obstruction in the discharge of their duties. We are in these circumstances satisfied that no directions for police protection need be issued under Article 226 of the Constitution now at the instance of the petitioner. This petition is in these circumstances dismissed. 6. We may hasten to observe that the dismissal of this petition will not in any way fetter the rights of the WPC No.32969/2011 4 petitioner, if any, to complain about the non-compliance with the directions in Ext.P5 judgment or other remedies which he has under law. R.BASANT JUDGE K.SURENDRA MOHAN JUDGE css/