IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN THURSDAY, THE 20TH JANUARY 2011 / 30TH POUSHA 1932 WP(C).No. 2052 of 2011(F) ------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- DANIEL, S/O. PHILIPOSE, SANTHSOH BHAVAN, PAZHANGALATHU CHERRY, NEDUMPANA VILLAGEE, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.RAJENDRAN RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KUNDARA POLICE STATION, KOLLAM. 3. NAZARUDDIEN, RASHEED MANZIL, PAZHANGALATHU CHERRY, NEDUMPANA VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 4. SHEEBA NAZARUDDIEN, RASHEED MANZIL, PAZHANGALATHU CHERRY, NEDUMPANA VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 5. RADHAKRISHNA PILLAI, RATHEESH BHAVAN, PAZHANGALATHU CHERRY, NEDUMPANA VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 6. LEELAMANI AMMA, D/O. BHARGAVI AMMA, RATHEESH BHAVAN, PAZHANGALATHU CHERRY, NEDUMPANA VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 7. THE NEDUMPANA GRAMA PANCHAYATHU, NEDUMPANA P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. GOVERNMENR PLEADER SRI. T.K.VIPINDAS THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. *********************** W.P(C) No.2052 of 2011 ***************************** Dated this the 20th day of January, 2011 JUDGMENT BASANT, J. The petitioner has come to this Court with this petition for issue of directions to respondents 1 and 2 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to afford police protection to him against any obstruction by respondents 3 to 6 against the petitioner constructing a compound wall as permitted by the 7th respondent. 2. There evidently is a dispute by the petitioner on the one hand and respondents 3 to 6 on the other about the pathway used by respondents 3 to 6 on the southern side of the property of the petitioner. The precise dispute, it appears, is the line along which the compound wall can be constructed on the northern boundary of the pathway, ie. the southern boundary of the petitioner's property. Parties are already before the civil court. They have already secured Exts.P2 and P6 interim orders in the respective suits filed by them. W.P(C) No.2052 of 2011 2 3. During the pendency of those suits without seeking a specific direction from the Court as to the line along which the boundary can be constructed, the petitioner has come to this Court with this petition for issue of directions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to enable him to construct the boundary along the line, which he thinks and considers, that he is in law entitled to construct the compound wall. 4. We are certainly of the opinion that the dispute between the parties as to where exactly the compound wall can be constructed/construction completed, is a matter in dispute between the parties. That dispute cannot be left to the police for their decision. Parties are already before the civil court and they must in those suits seek appropriate direction from the court as to where exactly the compound wall can be constructed. We are not persuaded to agree that any direction can be issued to the police, which would virtually leave the police with the right to decide where exactly the compound wall can be constructed. 5. This Writ Petition is, in these circumstances, dismissed. We make it clear that we have not intended to express any opinion as to where the compound wall can be W.P(C) No.2052 of 2011 3 constructed/construction completed. The parties will have to seek appropriate relief from the civil court. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE) rtr/