IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN FRIDAY, THE 7TH MARCH 2008 / 17TH PHALGUNA 1929 WP(C).No. 7851 of 2008(I) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ NANCY P.JOSEPH, OLAVANTHARA KUZHIYIL, L.M.PYLEE ROAD, VYTTILA, KOCHI-682 019. BY ADV. SRI.V.P.SUKUMAR RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. SMT.RAJANI, W/O. SADANANDAN, VELIKKAKATH HOUSE, KUMBALAM VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 2. SMT.M.B.LATHA, W/O. N.S.JOSHY, NAGAPPADY HOUSE, EROOR DESOM, NADAMA VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 3. SRI.FRANCIS, CHERIYA KAMKARAMCHERY HOUSE, PALLURUTHY VILLAGE, KOCHI TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 4. SRI.SAJEEVAN, VARANAM HOUSE, NEAR ST.PATRICK CHURCH, SAHODARAN AYYAPPAN ROAD, VYTTILA, KOCHI-682 019. 5. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TRIPUNITHURA. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.P.A.SALIM. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & P.N.RAVINDRAN, JJ. ----------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO. 7851 OF 2008-I ----------------------------------------- Dated 7th March, 2008. JUDGMENT Balakrishnan Nair, J. The petitioner purchased a plot of land having an extent of about 5 cents by Ext.P1 sale deed. The vendor of the petitioner got the property in court sale. The judgment debtor, during the pendency of the suit and while an interim order of attachment was in force, assigned the properties to third parties. When the petitioner went to the said plot of land to make improvements in it, she was obstructed by the persons who claimed the land on the strength of the assignment made by the judgment debtor. The petitioner submits, the transfers made when the suit was pending and the attachment order was in force, are null and void. Therefore, she moved the police for protection to enjoy the property and to make improvements in it and also to construct a compound wall, by filing Ext.P10 representation. The prayer in the said representation reads as follows: “In the above circumstances it is humbly requested that WPC 7851/2008 2 Sri.Francis and Sri.Sajeevan may be restrained from interfering with my personal enjoyment of the property in Survey No.858 of Nadama Village, Kanayannur Taluk, in the interest of justice and I may kindly be provided necessary assistance to make improvements in the land including construction of compound wall.” Thereafter, when the police did not extend any helping hand, this writ petition is filed, seeking the following relief: “to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order directing the 5th respondent to provide adequate police protection to the petitioner for peaceful enjoyment of the property purchased by her as per Ext.P1 sale deed.” 2. The claim of the petitioner for police protection for enjoyment of the property or the construction of the compound wall cannot be granted. She has to move the competent civil court for appropriate orders. The civil court can address the police to extend necessary help to enforce its orders. This view is supported by the Division Bench decisions of this Court in Devadasan v. State of Kerala [2005(3) KLT 739] and M.G.Ajayakumar v. State of Kerala [2008(1) KHC 461 (DB)]. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed without prejudice to the contentions of the petitioner and her WPC 7851/2008 3 right to move the competent civil court for appropriate orders. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE. P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE. Nm/