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 20TH OCTOBER 2008 / 28TH ASWINA 1930 WP(C).No. 26742 of 2008(H) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- RAJAMMA, W/O.C.R.THANKAPPAN AGED 49 YEARS, MANJAPPALLIKUNNEL HOUSE AYARKUNNAM P.O.,KOTTAYAM BY ADV. SRI.P.SANJAY SMT.A.PARVATHI MENON SRI.JINU JOSEPH RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY S.I. OF POLICE AYARKUNNAM POLICE STATION AYARKUNNAM,KOTTAYAM. 2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE KOTTAYAM 3. S.I.OF POLICE AYARKUNNAM POLICE STATION, AYARUNNAM,KOTTAYAM. 4. DAMODARAN,S/O, UNNI MANJAPPALLIKUNNEL HOUSE,AYARKUNNAM P.O.,KOTTAYAM 5. M.D.SAJI, S/O.DAMODARAN' MANJAPPALLIKUNNEL HOUSE AYARKKUNNAM P.O.,KOTTAYAM. 6. M.D.VINOD, S/O. DAMODARAN MANJAPPALLIKUNNEL HOUSE,AYARKKUNNAM P.O.,KOTTAYAM 7. M.D.SABU, S/O.DAMODARAN MANJAPPALLIKUNNEL HOUSE,AYARKKUNNAM P.O.,KOTTAYAM 8. M.D.SUNILKUMAR,S/O.DAMODARAN MANJAPPALLIKUNNEL HOUSE,AYARKKUNNAM P.O.,KOTTAYAM SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BENAJAMIN PAUL FOR R1 TO R3 ADV. SRI.SURIN GEORGE IPE FOR R4 TO R8 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO. 26742/2008-H APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN O.S. NO.158/2001 DATED 24/06/2004. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE DECREE IN O.S. NO.158/2001 DATED 24/06/2004. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN A.S. NO.190/04 DATED 30/03/07. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE COMMISSION REPORT FILED BY THE ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER IN EA NO.11/2008 IN EP NO.264/2007 IN OS NO.158/2001. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION OF THE PETITIONER DATED 21/08/2008. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Rs/ K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. ----------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C)No.26742 OF 2008 H ----------------------------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 20th DAY OF OCTOBER, 2008 J U D G M E N T Balakrishnan Nair, J. This is a Writ Petition filed against alleged police harassment. 2. There was a dispute between the petitioner and respondents 4 to 8. The said respondents claimed a pathway through the property of the petitioner. The said claim was resisted by the petitioner and she moved the Munsiff's Court. The Munsiff's Court rendered Exhibit P1 judgment restraining the defendants therein who are the party respondents herein from trespassing into the plaint schedule property or committing any waste or damages therein, by way of permanent prohibitory injunction. Exhibit P2 is the decree in that suit. The defendants therein attempted an appeal against that judgment before the District Court. The said appeal was dismissed by Exhibit P3. Thereafter, the petitioner took execution steps and in the presence of the Advocate Commissioner, she constructed a compound wall. The petitioner submits, subsequently, respondents 4 to 8 demolished the same. So, she filed a petition before the Sub Inspector of Police. Though the Sub Inspector came to the site, he did W.P.(C)No.26742/08 -2- not extend any help to the petitioner, but sided with the party respondents and threatened her. In the above background, she filed Exhibit P5 petition before the District Superintendent of Police against the stand of the Sub Inspector and thereafter this Writ Petition is filed, complaining about the harassment from the part of the Sub Inspector of Police, the 3rd respondent herein. 2. We heard the learned counsel for respondents 4 to 8 and also the learned Government Pleader for the official respondents. The learned Government Pleader submitted that on coming to the spot, the Sub Inspector found that there was a dispute between the parties for the last several years. Since the petitioner did not show the court orders, etc., the Sub Inspector happened to take such a stand as alleged by the petitioner. But, on seeing the papers presented by the petitioner, it is found that the petitioner is entitled to construct the compound wall. The learned Government Pleader further submitted that the 3rd respondent has no intention whatsoever to interfere in this dispute between the petitioner and the party respondents. This submission is recorded and the Writ Petition is disposed of. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE. M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE. dsn