IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN MONDAY, THE 10TH JANUARY 2011 / 20TH POUSHA 1932 WP(C).No. 644 of 2011(E) ----------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- 1. SHABU, S/O. PRAKASAN, AMBALLOOR VEEDU, KUNTHALLOOR, CHIRAYINKIZHU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 304. 2. SHAJU P. SIMON, S/O. SIMON, PULLEKKARAN VEEDU, MUKUNDAPURAM, THRISSUR, REP. BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER SHYLAJAN, S/O. PRAKASAN, AMBALLOOR VEEDU, KUNTHALLOOR, CHIRAYINKIZHU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 304. BY ADV. SRI.G.BHAGAVAT SINGH RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MEDICAL COLLEGE POLICE STATION, MEDICAL COLLEGE.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 011. 2. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MEDICAL COLLEGE POLICE, MEDICAL COLLEGE.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 011. 3. P.KRISHNAMOORTHI, S/O. PURUSHOTHAMAN, INDEEVARAM, KOTTARA LANE, GOUREESAPATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695004. R1 & R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. T.K. VIPINDAS THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Mn R.BASANT & K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------------------------ W.P(C) NO: 644 OF 2011 ----------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 10th January, 2011. JUDGMENT Basant, J. The petitioners have come to this Court complaining about illegal interference and unnecessary harassment on the part of respondents 1 and 2, police officials. According to the petitioner he had purchased 5 cents of property from his vendors under Ext.P1 registered sale deed. That purchase was on 22-7-2010. Subsequently third respondent had initiated proceedings against the vendor of the petitioners and obtained an order of attachment of property extending to 11 cents including the 5 cents purchased under Ext.P1. That order of attachment over 10 cents of property was obtained on 3-8-2010. According to the petitioner he had become the owner of the property prior to the order of attachment and his property is not liable to be attached. The petitioner informs the Court that he has already filed a claim petition before the Civil Court to get the attachment of property covered by Ext.P1 lifted. As per Ext.P4 order a learned Single WPC 644/2011 2 Judge of this Court had directed expeditious disposal of the said claim petition. 2. The petitioner who has purchased the property wants to put up a compound wall for his property. When he was undertaking that work third respondent who had secured the order of attachment subsequent to the purchase of the property by the petitioner is raising unnecessary objections. He has no legal right to raise objections. He has not chosen to go to the Civil Court to restrain the petitioner from putting up the boundary for the property purchased under Ext.P1 but instead he had gone to respondents 1 and 2. Third respondent according to the petitioners appears to have a clout with respondents 1 and 2. Respondents 1 and 2 using the police powers vested in them are trying to harass the petitioner by compelling him not to construct compound wall for his property. Petitioner is willing to face any proceedings from the third respondent if he raises any objection for the construction of his compound wall. But respondents 1 and 2 have no right and may be restrained from unnecessarily harassing the petitioner, prays the learned counsel for the petitioners. WPC 644/2011 3 3. We ordered notice to respondents 1 and 2. In the nature of the contentions raised we did not order notice to the third respondent. Today learned Govt. Pleader after taking instructions submits that a complaint was received from the third respondent of the attempt by the petitioners to put up a compound wall around his property regarding which the third respondent obtained an order of attachment over a larger extent including the property of the petitioners. The respondents 1 and 2 have not intervened in the civil dispute. They have only directed the parties to go to the Civil Court and obtain appropriate directions. Respondents 1 and 2 do not intend to restrain the petitioners from constructing the compound wall. It is for the third respondent to approach the Civil Court if he wants to restrain the petitioners from constructing compound wall around his property. The learned Govt. Pleader submits that respondents 1 and 2 do not want to express any opinion on the right of the petitioners to construct compound wall around their property or the right of the third respondent to object to such construction. Respondents 1 and 2 had only directed the parties to get their disputes if any resolved from Civil Court. The learned Govt. Pleader undertakes that respondents 1 and 2 shall WPC 644/2011 4 not in any way harass the petitioners or issue any directions regarding the civil dispute between the petitioners and the third respondent. 4. We accept the undertaking of the learned Govt. Pleader on behalf of respondents 1 and 2. If there be any dispute between the petitioners and the third respondent it is for the aggrieved party to approach the Civil Court and seek appropriate directions. We accept the submission of the learned Govt. Pleader that respondents 1 and 2 shall not interfere or issue any directions to the petitioners in the matter. This petition is allowed in part to the above extent. R.BASANT Judge K. SURENDRA MOHAN Judge jj WPC 644/2011 5