IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM WEDNESDAY, THE 7TH SEPTEMBER 2011 / 16TH BHADRA 1933 WP(C).No. 23371 of 2011(V) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- REJITHA JOBY,W/O.JOBY VETTUVAYALIL HOUSE, KAIPADAMUGHAL VADAVUCODU PO, THRIKKAKARA ERNAKULAM DISTRICT PIN 680 021. BY ADV. SRI.BOBBY JOHN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE KALAMASSERY. 2. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE KALAMASSERY. 3. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE ERNAKULAM. 4. JANARDHANAN NAIR THAMARATHUCHALIL HOUSE,KAIPADAMUGHAL ROAD VADAVUCODE PO, THRIKKAKARA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT 680 021. 5. SUNIL, EDAYATHU HOUSE, KIZHAKKAMBALAM VILLAGE KIZHAKKAMBALAM PO, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.R.MURALEEKRISHNAN FOR R4 & R5 GOVT. PLEADER SMT. C.M. CHARISMA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/09/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX: PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 22-08-2011 RECEIVED BY THE HUSBAND OF THE PETITIONER FROM THE TALUK SURVEYOR, KANAYANNUR. EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DT. 25-08-2011 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE FIRST AND SECOND RESPONDENTS RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL (TRUE COPY) PS TO JUDGE. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ----------------------------------------------- WP(C). No. 23371 of 2011 ----------------------------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of September, 2011 J U D G M E N T Pius C.Kuriakose, J. The petitioner, a lady has approached this Court seeking the following reliefs: i. To issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order directing the first and second respondents to give necessary protection to the life and residential property of the petitioner. ii. To issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order directing the first respondent to take appropriate steps to avoid any untoward incident during the re-survey of property in which house of the petitioner is situated; iii. To issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order directing the first respondent to conduct an investigation in the matter with respect to the grievance raised in Exhibit P2 complaint. On considering this writ petition for admission we directed the first respondent Sub Inspector of Police to conduct an enquiry into Ext.P2, if no enquiry is conducted so far and if WP(C). 23371/11 -2- the enquiry reveals that there is subsisting threat to the live of the petitioner and her family members, the first respondent will do the needful for protecting their lives. 2. On receiving notice, the party respondents entered appearance and filed a detailed counter affidavit denying the averments in the writ petition. The learned Govt. Pleader submitted before us that Ext.P2 was enquired into and the enquiry revealed that the dispute between the petitioner and the party respondents is in respect of a pathway and a suit is instituted by the wife of the 5th respondent against the petitioner. In that suit, the court has passed an order against the petitioner directing maintenance of status quo in respect of the pathway. The suit is even now pending. The Govt. Pleader further submitted that the enquiry into Ext.P2 also revealed that the allegation that there is threat to the life of the petitioner and her family members is untrue. The learned counsel for the petitioner drew our attention to WP(C). 23371/11 -3- paragraph 5 of the counter affidavit filed by respondents 4 and 5, wherein they have stated that the they have no objection to a survey being conducted for identifying the pathway, if any, which exists on the property. Yet when the surveyor went to the property the party respondents objected. The learned counsel for the party respondents per contra submitted on the basis of the counter affidavit filed by them that there is no warrant for issuance of any of the directions sought for. 3. We have given anxious consideration to the rival submissions addressed at the Bar. We have gone through the pleadings raised by the parties. The third prayer in the writ petition is that the first respondent be directed to conduct an enquiry into Ext.P2. As an enquiry is already conducted, the said prayer is irrelevant. Coming to the other prayers in the writ petition, the second prayer is that the first respondent should be directed to take appropriate WP(C). 23371/11 -4- steps to avoid any untoward incident during the resurvey of the property. We are of the view that if the officers of the survey department proceeds to conduct a resurvey and if they are obstructed, it is for them to seek police protection. In this writ petition, the surveyor or other parties of the survey department who are to conduct resurvey are not made parties. We relegate the petitioners to urge relief No. 2 in other appropriate proceedings. Now the only surviving prayer is protection for life and property of the petitioner. In view of the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner regarding the correctness of the averment in Ext.P2 regarding the existence of pathway, we are not inclined to grant the above prayer. 4. We dispose of the writ petition without granting any of the prayers. At the same time we direct the first respondent to keep vigil over subject property in question and ensure that the dispute between the parties does not WP(C). 23371/11 -5- give rise to any law and order situation and breach of peace or violence. (PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE) (C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE) ksv/-