IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN WEDNESDAY, THE 25TH MARCH 2009 / 4TH CHAITHRA 1931 WP(C).No. 9630 of 2009(W) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- MANI,S/O.DEVASSY,AGED 73 YEARS, EDASSERY HOUSE,PUTHIADOM,VADAKKUMBHAGAM KARA, KIZHAKKUMBHAGAM VILLAGE,KANJUR. BY ADV. SRI.SHAJI P.CHALY RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY HOME SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE(RURAL),ALUVA. 3. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,KALADY. 4. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,KALADY. 5. CHANDRA SEKHARAN,S/O.KALYANIAMMA, AGED 76 YEARS,PANDARAPATTOM,KOLATHOOR DESOM, NELLAYI VILLAGE,MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR. 6. V.G.MENON, S/O.KARTHIANIAMMA, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS,VARANATU VEETTIL, KIZHAKKUMBHAGAM VILLAGE,ALUVA TALUK. R1 TO 4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI P.A.SALIM THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMAN & P.S. GOPINATHAN, JJ. ---------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO. 9630 of 2009 ---------------------------------------------- DATED:MARCH 25, 2009. JUDGMENT Raman, J. Petitioner seeks police protection for cutting and removal of a tree standing in the boundary of his property. According to him the tree belongs to him exclusively. He relies on Ext.P5 judgment of the civil court and Ext.P6 appeal. Ext.P5 is the judgment in OS 636/1996 filed by the 6th respondent. He sought for a declaration which was eventually dismissed and confirmed in appeal. It is the case of the petitioner that in so far as the declaration sought for was dismissed by the court below and confirmed in appeal, the 6th respondent cannot lay any claim for the tree now in question and also the Kayyala. 2. May be there is some force in this contention. When there is any physical obstruction caused relating to a property, this court cannot give police protection except in exceptional circumstances. When the petitioner has got other effective remedy, he should be relegated to that remedy. But when once W.P.(C) NO. 9630 of 2009 :2: such an order is passed by the civil court, petitioner is entitled to get the order enforced from the civil court. Therefore at this stage, relegating the petitioner to the civil court, we decline jurisdiction. The writ petition is dismissed. P.R. RAMAN, JUDGE. P.S. GOPINATHAN, JUDGE. mt/-