IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH DECEMBER 2008 / 19TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 WP(C).No. 36395 of 2008(G) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. VEERAN, S/O.HYDRUMAN KARIKKAKKAVU PEEDIKAYIL HOUSE, THONNURKARA P.O., CHELAKKARA (VIA)THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. RAJAN,S/O.PAZHANIMALA, PUTHENVEETTIL, VELLADI, ELNADU VILLAGE, TALAPPILLY TALUK. 3. KAMALAM, W/O.PREMKUMAR, CHEPPAYIL HOUSE, PAZHAYANNUR P.O.,VELLARKULAM, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.RADHAKRISHNAN (1) SRI.MADHU RADHAKRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,PAZHAYANNUR POLICE STATION, PAZHAYANNUR. 2. CHAMI, S/O.NEELI, PAMBRATHPARAMBIL HOUSE, KODATHUR, KALEPADAM, PAZHAYANNUR VILLAGE, P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT. 3. MATHAI, S/O.IPE, PARAPLACKAL HOUSE,' CHEERAKKUZHI (MICHABHOOMI)VADAKKETHARA VILLAGE, VADAKKETHARA P.O.,THALAPPILLY TALUK. 4. KRISHNANKUTTY, S/O.SANKUNNI, KOTTEKATTIL HOUSE, CHEERAKKUZHI, VADAKKETHARA VILLAGE, P.O., THALAPPILLY TALUK. 5. HUSAIN, S/O.SAIDU MUHAMMED, AVARAL HOUSE, PAZHAYANNUR VILLAGE, TALAPPILLY TALUK, PAZHAYANNUR P.O. BY SR.GOVT. PLEADER SRI.BENJAMIN PAUL - R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. ----------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO. 36395 OF 2008-G ----------------------------------------- Dated 10th December, 2008. JUDGMENT Balakrishnan Nair, J. The petitioners have approached this Court, seeking police protection in the background of the alleged threat to their lives and property at the hands of respondents 2 to 5. They say, they are in possession of plots of land having an extent of 13 cents (RS.Nos.462/5 and 466/17), 41 cents (R.S.Nos.462/10 & 462/11) and 46 cents (R.S.Nos.462/12 & 462/17) respectively in Vadakethara Village, Talappilly Taluk. The 1st petitioner got the property on assignment made by the State Government, as evident from Ext.P1 order. The petitioners 2 and 3 are claiming the respective plots of land under the 1st petitioner. Though the land was allotted to the 1st petitioner, patta was never issued to him. The said grievance was the subject-matter of two writ petitions before this Court. By Ext.P2 judgment, the 1st WPC 36395/08 2 petitioner was directed to approach the Government and the Government was directed to look into his grievance. By Ext.P4 judgment, this Court directed the Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, Kerala, to look into the representation filed by the petitioners concerning their grievance regarding non-issuance of patta. There was also a further direction in that judgment against the official respondents not to evict them till a decision is taken on their representation. While so, respondents 2 to 5 trespassed into their property on 16.11.2008 and committed waste. On 17.11.2008, when the 1st petitioner and his workmen were doing agricultural operations, they were obstructed by the said respondents. Therefore, the said petitioner preferred Ext.P6 representation before the police and thereafter, this writ petition is filed, seeking the following reliefs: “(a) issue a writ of mandamus directing the 1st respondent to provide police protection to the petitioners herein and ensure protection to their life and properties. (b) to issue a writ of mandamus directing the 1st respondent to maintain law and order by ensuring respondents 2 to 5 do not trespass into the property in the possession of the petitioners.” 2. If respondents 2 to 5 trespass into the property in the WPC 36395/08 3 possession of the petitioners, commit waste or threaten them, their remedy lies before the civil court. There is threat to their lives only when they go to the disputed property. If they go around attending their normal avocations, there is no threat to their lives. So, we cannot consider the request of the learned counsel for the petitioners that at least police protection may be ordered to their lives. If such an order is made, then the same will tilt the balance in the civil dispute between the parties. Having regard to the nature of the allegations in Ext.P6, we feel that the remedy of the petitioners lies before the civil court. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed without prejudice to the contentions of the petitioners and their right to move the competent civil court for appropriate reliefs. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE. M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE. Nm/