IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN TUESDAY, THE 5TH APRIL 2011 / 15TH CHAITHRA 1933 WP(C).No. 8543 of 2011(P) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- P.M.THOMAS, THONIPPARA PUTHEN MADOM, KOTTATHOOR MURI, AYROOR VILLAGE, RANNI, PATHANAMTHITTA. BY ADV. SRI.JACOB P.ALEX RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, PATHANAMTHITTA. 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KOIPPURAM POLICE STATION,PULLAD.P.O., KOIPPURAM, PATHANAMTHITTA-689548. 3. K.S.MATHAI, KUZHIKALAYIL HOUSE, KOTTATHOOR MURI, AYROOR VILLAGE, RANNI, PATHANAMTHITTA-689614. R1 &R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.JAIBY PAUL R3 BY ADV. SRI.PHILIP M.VARUGHESE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/04/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss W.P.(C) NO.8543/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 30.7.2009 IN OS. 101/2006. P2:- COPY OF THE PLAINT OS NO.56/2011 FILED BEFORE THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, RANNI. P3:- COPY OF THE APPLICATION DTD. 25.10.2010 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE INFORMATIN OFFICER OF KOIPPURAM POLICE STATION UNDER RTI ACT. P4:- COPY OF THE REPLOY LETTER NO.140/GC/10/K2 TO EXHIBIT P3. P5:- COPY OF THE APPLICATION DT.D 31.01.2011UNDER RTI ACT. P6:- COPY OF THE REPLY DTD. 19.2.2011 TO EXT.P5 ALONG WITH THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. P7:- COPY OF THE APPLICATION DTD. 9.3.2011 UNDER RTI ACT. P8:- COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 12.3.2011 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE SIT RESPONDENT. P9:- OUGH SKETHC PREPARED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT AND PRODUCED BY HIM IN OS. NO.101/2006 OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, RANNI. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS NIL:- TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE tss R.BASANT & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. *********************** W.P(C) No.8543 of 2011-P ***************************** Dated this the 5th day of April, 2011 JUDGMENT BASANT, J. The petitioner has come to this Court complaining of police harassment to the petitioner for the peaceful cultivation of his 80 cents property. The 3rd respondent is allegedly raising illegal obstructions. According to the petitioner, the police, to help the influential 3rd respondent, is vexing and harassing the petitioner. 2. Between the petitioner and the 3rd respondent, civil disputes were there. The petitioner had filed a suit and a counter claim was raised by the 3rd respondent. That suit was disposed of by Ext.P1 judgment. The petitioner's suit was dismissed and the counter claim of the 3rd respondent was allowed. According to the petitioner, that dispute was about an 8 feet wide pathway on the eastern side of the property of the petitioner measuring 80 cents. The petitioner now submits that the petitioner shall confine his activities to the 80 cents and shall not in any way interfere with the pathway on the east of 8 feet width. He may be permitted to peacefully cultivate his property measuring 80 cents. When he tries to do the same, the police is W.P(C) No.8543 of 2011-P 2 causing obstruction and is unnecessarily vexing and harassing him. In these circumstances, primarily the prayer in this Writ Petition is that the police harassment may be stopped. 3. Respondent No.3 has entered appearance. According to the 3rd respondent, the petitioner is attempting to obliterate the pathway existing on the eastern side of his property. The 3rd respondent had complained to the police and the police had directed the parties to abide by the decision of the civil court. The petitioner obviously wants to take law into his hands and obliterate the pathway. It is in this context that the petitioner is unjustifiably complaining about police harassment. The police had only taken legal action on the basis of the complaint of the petitioner. 4. We turned to the learned Government Pleader for his submissions. The learned Government Pleader submits that between the petitioner and the 3rd respondent there are serious civil disputes. The bone of contention is a pathway on the eastern side of the property of the petitioner. Even though there was a grant of the right of way on the eastern side, the petitioner had contended that such right has got extinguished. W.P(C) No.8543 of 2011-P 3 The court has not accepted the same. An appeal is pending against Ext.P1 judgment. At this juncture, the 3rd respondent complained about illegal interference with the way on the east. It is then that the police had directed the parties not to take law into their hands. There is no question of harassment or vexation. The parties have been advised to abide by the order of the civil court. 5. It is not disputed that subsequently Ext.P2 suit has been filed by the petitioner seeking identical relief. He had sought an order of injunction to restrain the respondent from trespassing into his 80 cents plot. Admittedly though the suit has been filed, no interim orders have been obtained from the civil court. 6. The learned Government Pleader submits that the police have no intention to interfere with the civil dispute between the parties. There is no question of any harassment or vexation of the petitioner. But, the complaint of the 3rd respondent of interference with the pathway and an attempt to take law into his hands by the petitioner, had to be attended to. Parties have hence been directed to get appropriate orders from the civil court. W.P(C) No.8543 of 2011-P 4 7. We have considered all the relevant circumstances. We accept the submission of the learned Government Pleader on behalf of the police that they shall not interfere with the civil dispute between the parties. But certainly the petitioner cannot take law into his hands and attempt to obliterate the pathway contrary to the terms of Ext.P1 judgment. The learned counsel for the petitioner quickly undertakes that the petitioner shall not in any way alter the pathway. This means that exact dividing line between the pathway and the property of the petitioner will have to be ascertained. That, we feel, must rightly be left to the civil court. Ext.P2 suit has already been filed also. We are, in these circumstances, satisfied that no directions in favour of the petitioner can or need be issued by this Court now. Until and unless the boundary between the pathway and the petitioner's property is identified, it will be hazardous for this Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue any specific directions in favour of the petitioner. 8. This Writ Petition is, in these circumstances, dismissed. We opine that the parties will have to seek appropriate orders from the civil court. We accept the submission of the learned Government Pleader that the police W.P(C) No.8543 of 2011-P 5 officers shall not interfere in the civil dispute between the parties. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE) rtr/