IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH JANUARY 2008 / 19TH POUSHA 1929 WP(C).No. 33839 of 2007(C) PETITIONER: 1. M.P.THOMAS, MOOZHIKKACHALIL HOUSE, MUVATTUPUZHA VILLAGE, MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 2. RUBY THOMAS, MOOZHIKKACHALIL HOUSE, MUVATTUPUZHA VILLAGE, MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.KODOTH SREEDHARAN SRI.AJEESH S.BRITE RESPONDENTS: 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. R.D.O., REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 3. SRI. M.T.ANTONY, AGED 62 YEARS, S/O. LATE M.V.THOMAS, POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER OF ULAHANNAN THOMAS, R/AT MUNDANCHERRY, 35/1263, ST.MARTINE ROAD, PALARIVATTOM, KOCHI-25. 4. ULAHANNAN THOMAS, AGED 82 YEARS, S/O. LATE VARKEY, KAITHAKKACHALIL VEEDU, KAVANA, VAZHAKKULAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.S.MADHUSOODANAN for R3 SRI.T.V.JAYAKUMAR NAMBOODIRI SRI. I.V. PRAMOD, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J ----------------------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).NO.33839/2007 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of January, 2008 JUDGMENT Challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P2. By this order, the second respondent has restrained the petitioner from continuing any construction work, in view of the pendency of a dispute between the petitioner on the one side and respondents 3 and 4 on the other. 2. The main contention that is urged by the counsel for the petitioner is that a reading of Ext.P2 itself discloses that what is sought to be adjudicated is purely a civil dispute and if that be so, the second respondent has no jurisdiction to interfere with the matter. 3. The learned counsel for the respondents 3 and 4 makes reference to the counter affidavit filed by the 3rd respondent. Along with the counter affidavit they have also produced Ext.R3(b) order of this court in W.P(c). 2 No.32993/07. Referring to the said order, it is contended that there is an apprehension of breach of peace and therefore the aforesaid writ petition for police protection was filed. According to him, in the said order this court held that if there is any apprehension of breach of peace in connection with the civil dispute, the RDO is the competent person to deal with such situation. On that basis, it is contended that the RDO is perfectly justified in initiating proceedings by issuing Ext.P2. 4. True, in case there is apprehension of breach of peace in connection with the civil dispute between the parties, RDO is perfectly justified to act under Section 145 Cr.P.C. However, in Ext.P2, all that is stated is that there is a dispute regarding title in relation to immovable property and it does not mention about any breach of peace. With the materials available on record, I am not in a position to conclude that the RDO was acting beyond jurisdiction. 5. Therefore I need only clarify that if the dispute between the parties is purely a civil dispute the 2nd 3 respondent has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. It will be open to the petitioner to appear before the 2nd respondent and the said respondent shall decide the matter in accordance with law. Writ Petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE vi. 4