IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN TUESDAY, THE 8TH MARCH 2011 / 17TH PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 6537 of 2011(N) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ C.C.JOY, AGED 56, S/O.CHACKO, PENSIONER, CHIRACKAL HOUSE, THURUTHI P.O., PRALAYAKKAD, (VIA) KURUPPUMPADI. BY ADV. DR.GEORGE ABRAHAM RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. K.C.MATHEWS, S/O.CHACKO, KUNNAPPILLY HOUSE, MEEMPARA, MUDAKKUZHA, VENGOOR WEST VILLAGE, VIA KURUPPUMPADI.683 545 2. M.P.AYYAPPAN, S/O.PENGAN, MOOLETHUMKUDI HOUSE, MEEMPARA, MUDAKKUZHA, VENGOOR WEST VILLAGE, VIA KURUPPUMPADI.PIN- 683 545 3. T.M.BINI, S/O.MATHAI, THURUTHI HOUSE, CHOONDAKUZHI P.O., MEEMPARA, MUDAKKUZHA, VENGOOR WEST VILLAGE, VIA KURUPPUMPADI.683 545 4. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, POLICE STATION, KODANAD (VIA) KURUPPUMPADI.683 545 5. DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, PERUMBAVOOR.PIN- 683 542 R4 & R5 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. C.M. CHARISMA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts WP(C)NO.6537/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1 COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE MUNSIFF COURT, PERUMBAVOOR IN O.S.189/10. P2 COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER WITH THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KODANAD ON 24/2/2011. P3 COPY OF THE PETITION FILEDBY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, PERUMBAVOOR ON 25//2/2011 RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO.JUDGE sts R.BASANT & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. *********************** W.P(C) No.6537 of 2011-N ***************************** Dated this the 8th day of March, 2011 JUDGMENT BASANT, J. The petitioner has come to this Court seeking issue of directions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to respondents 4 and 5 obliging them to afford police protection to the petitioner to remove felled soft trees in his property against illegal objections raised by respondents 1 to 3. 2. According to the petitioner, rubber trees in his property were cut and removed. When objections were raised against the same, he was obliged to move the civil court. He had obtained Ext.P5 judgment in his favour. Respondents 1 and 2 herein along with another, were defendants in that suit. They did not contest their suit. Accordingly decree was passed in favour of the petitioner. 3. There were some soft wood trees also in the property. They have already been felled. The petitioner wants to remove them from his property. Illegal obstructions are being raised by respondents 1 to 3 against such removal. Complaints made to the police did not evoke any useful response and it is, in these W.P(C) No.6537 of 2011-N 2 circumstances, that the petitioner has come to this Court for police protection. The petitioner contends that respondents 1 to 3 have absolutely no right to raise objection against the removal/transportation of the felled trees by the petitioner from his property. 4. This petition was admitted on 03.03.2011. No interim orders were passed. Notice was ordered to all the respondents. All respondents have been served, but there is no appearance for respondents 1 to 3. The learned Government Pleader represents respondents 4 and 5. 5. The learned Government Pleader submits that respondents 4 and 5 have interacted with respondents 1 to 3. They raise no objection against the removal of the felled soft trees from the property of the petitioner. It is the statement of respondents 4 and 5 that they do not anticipate any obstruction or objection from respondents 1 to 3 against removal of soft wood tree from the petitioner's property. In these circumstances, the petitioner can remove the trees from his property. If there be any objection/obstruction from respondents 1 to 3, respondents 4 and 5 shall afford necessary protection, it is submitted by the learned Government Pleader. W.P(C) No.6537 of 2011-N 3 6. In the absence of any objection from respondents 1 to 3 and in the nature of the stand taken by the learned Government Pleader on behalf of respondents 4 and 5, we are satisfied that this Writ petition can be allowed and directions for police protection can be issued. 7. In the result: a) This Writ Petition is allowed; b) Respondents 4 and 5 are directed to afford adequate and sufficient protection for the petitioner to remove the felled soft trees in his property in accordance with law against any objection/obstruction that may be caused by respondents 1 to 3. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE) rtr/