IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH JANUARY 2011 / 22ND POUSHA 1932 WP(C).No. 1106 of 2011(K) ------------------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------------- 1. VARGHESE, MOLEL VEETTIL, MANNANKALA KARA, MANNANKANDAM VILLAGE, ADIMALI P.O, PIN 685 561. 2. SMT. PHILOMINA, W/O.VARGHESE, MOLEL VEETTIL,MANNANKALA KARA, MANNANKANDAM VILLAGE ADIMALI P.O, PIN- 685 561. BY ADV. SRI.JOSHI N.THOMAS. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. MONEY, KRISHNA VILASAM, MANNANKALA KARA, MANNANKANDAM VILLAGE ADIMALI P.O, PIN -685 561. 2. MRS. JAYA, W/O.MONEY, KRISHNA VILASAM, MANNANKALA KARA, MANNANKANDAM VILLAGE ADIMALI P.O, PIN -685 561. 3. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ADIMALI POLICE STATION, ADIMALI P.O, PIN -685 561. 4. THE TALUK OFFICER DEVIKULAM PIN 685 613. R3 & R4 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. T.K. VIPINDAS. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/01/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. R.BASANT & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. *********************** W.P(C) No.1106 of 2011 ***************************** Dated this the 12th day of January, 2011 JUDGMENT BASANT, J. The petitioners - spouses, claim to be the owners in possession of an item of property purchased in the name of the 2nd petitioner. They have come to this Court seeking issue of directions under Article 226 of the Constitution to respondents 3 and 4 to afford police protection to them against the alleged contumacious and culpable acts of respondents 1 and 2. Who are respondents 1 and 2 and what is the nature of disputes between the petitioners and respondents 1 and 2? To this query, it is clearly answered that respondents 1 and 2 are the owners of an adjacent property. It is submitted that there is claim that there exists a pathway in between the two properties. The boundary fencing of the petitioners' property was demolished by persons acting at the behest of respondents 1 and 2. This in short is the grievance. 2. As to where exactly the boundary lies and what is the right of the petitioners to insist on putting up the wall at that boundary which they claim are matters which cannot be decided W.P(C) No.1106 of 2011 2 by this Court invoking the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. The dispute evidently is about the boundary or the right to use of a pathway between the two properties. From the submissions made, it appears that the width of the pathway and the right to use that pathway are the precise areas of disputes. We are unable to agree that such intricate questions of fact between the parties can be sought to be resolved by resort to proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution. We are certainly of the opinion that the petitioners must approach the civil court to get their disputes with respondents 1 and 2 resolved satisfactorily in accordance with law. Without and before doing that, the petitioners cannot expect the police machinery to be pressed into service to resolve such disputes between two adjacent property owners. Rule of law, to which the society is wedded to, mandates that such disputes are not to be resolved by the police machinery using their executive powers. Such disputes are to be resolved in accordance with law by the judicial authorities/courts. 4. This petition is, in these circumstances, dismissed with the above observations. W.P(C) No.1106 of 2011 3 5. There is a submission that there is threat to the life or person of the petitioners. Except as a consequence to the civil dispute referred above, there is no semblance of a threat to life of the petitioners. The petitioners cannot alter the nature of the disputes by describing the same to be a threat to their life. A person having a dispute regarding the boundary with his neighbour cannot be permitted to stand on the disputed boundary and indulge in objectionable conduct and cry hoarse when the adversary objects to his conduct, that his life or person is in danger and must be protected by the police. Under the given of such an order of police protection, he cannot be permitted to resolve the dispute with the aid of police power avoiding a just and fair settlement through civil process. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE) rtr/ W.P(C) No.1106 of 2011 4