IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM TUESDAY, THE 16TH AUGUST 2011 / 25TH SRAVANA 1933 WP(C).No. 21666 of 2011(G) -------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------ ALEXANDER P.P., S/O.PATHROSE, PLANTHARA PUTHENPURAYIL HOUSE, PAVUKKARA P.O., ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.VINOD J.DEV SRI.PRAMOD J.DEV RESPONDENT(S): ------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOME, STATE SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001. 2. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, CHENGANNUR, ALAPPUZHA-689121. 3. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MANNAR, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT-689622. 4. P.P.PHILIPPOSE, S/O.KOCHUMMAN PERUMAL, PANANGATTETHU BUILDINGS, KURITTISSERY VILLAGE, MANNAR P.O., ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT-689622. ADV. SRI.GEORGE CHERIAN (THIRUVALLA) FOR R4 GOVT. PLEADER SMT.C.M.CHARISMA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/08/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 21666 of 2011(G) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXTS EXT.P1:- A TRUE COPY OF THE PERMIT BEARING NUMBER A2/738/11 DATED 04/08/11 ISSUED BY THE MANNAR GRAMAPANCHAYATH. EXT.P2:- A TRUE COPY OF the JUDGMENT DT.15/09/07 IN O.S.82/05 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MUNSIFF'S COURT, CHENGANNUR. EXT.P3:- A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DT.05/08/11 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P4:- A TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 05/08/11 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. RESPONDENTS' EXTS EXT.R4(a):- TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DT.17/12/05 //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & C. K. ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ------------------------------------------------ W. P. C. No.21666 of 2011 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 16th day of August, 2011 JUDGMENT Pius C. Kuriakose, J In this Writ Petition under Article 226, the petitioner seeks rendition of police protection for construction of a compound wall on the strength of Ext.P1 building permit issued by the local authority namely the Mannar Grama Panchayat in Alappuzha district. On getting instructions from the police, the learned Government Pleader submitted that on receiving Ext.P3 complaint, the police summoned the petitioner as well as the party respondents and on questioning them it was revealed that there subsists a boundary dispute between them. Parties were accordingly advised to have the boundary fixed through the process of a competent civil court. W. P. C. No.21666 of 2011 -2- 2. We have heard submissions of Sri.Pramod J. Dev, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.George Cherian, the learned counsel for the 4th respondent. Sri.Pramod J. Dev referred to Ext.P2 a suit filed by the respondent for boundary fixation which was dismissed for default. According Sri.Pramod till this moment no steps have been initiated by the 4th respondent for restoration of that suit. The issue of boundary fixation has been decided in favour of the petitioner, according to the learned counsel. 3. Sri.George Cherian per contra submitted that Ext.P2 negative decree at any rate cannot operate as res judicata. As to what is the correct boundary upon which the petitioner can be permitted to construct compound wall is a matter to be decided by a competent civil court on the basis of a fresh adjudication to which the petitioner and the party respondents are parties. Such an adjudication has not taken W. P. C. No.21666 of 2011 -3- place. Sri.George Cherian further submitted that the permit relied on by the petitioner has been obtained behind the back of the respondent. The above permit does not show the correct boundaries as per the title documents of the respective parties. 4. Having anxiously considered the rival submissions addressed at the Bar including the stand taken by the police through the learned Government Pleader, we are convinced that we will not be justified in issuing the police protection direction sought for. We decline jurisdiction and dismiss the Writ Petition. However, we make it clear that the petitioner will have the permission of approaching the civil court for fixation of the boundary. If the boundaries are not in dispute as the petitioner asserts, it is open to the petitioner to move the civil court by appropriate interlocutory applications for the appointment of a Commissioner to supervise the W. P. C. No.21666 of 2011 -4- construction of the boundary. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE C. K. ABDUL REHIM JUDGE kns/-