IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS FRIDAY, THE 29TH JANUARY 2010 / 9TH MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 36216 of 2009(V) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- D.JOHN, AGED 55 YEARS, REJI BHAVAN, ERAYAYAKONAM, KALLIKAD PANCHAYATH, NEYYATTINKARA. BY ADV. SRI.S.SACHITHANANDA PAI SRI.PRATHAP SINGH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE C.I OF POLICE, KATTAKADA, NEYYATTINKARA. 2. THE S.I OF POLICE, NEYYAR DAM POLICE STATION, NEYYAR DAM. 3. SHAJI, S/O.THOMAS, KUNNUVILA VEEDU, KANIKONAM, NEYYATTINKARA. 4. V.BHUVANA CHANDRAN, S/O.VASUPILLAI, ERAKONATHU VEEDU, THEVANCODE, KALLIKODE PANCHAYATH, NEYYATTINKARA. 5. SATHEESH, S/O.KRISHNAN, KANIKONATHU KUNNUVILA, KALLIKODE PANCHAYATH, NEYYATTINKARA. 6. SUBASH, S/O.C.GOPI, PANAYIL VEEDU, KARIPPARA, KALLIKODE PANCHAYATH, NEYYATTINKARA. 7. DHARMAN, S/O.MICHAEL NADAR, CHARUMMOODU THATTARIKATHU VEEDU, ERAKONAM, KALLIKODE PANCHAYATH, NEYYATTINKARA. R1 & R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.ARAVINDAKUMAR BABU T.K. ADV. SRI.V.JAYACHANDRAN FOR R3 TO R7 SRI.R.KRISHNAKUMAR (CHERTHALA) FOR R3 TO R7 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXTS: EXT.P1 COPY OF THE DECREE IN O.S.NO. 130/01 OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, NEYYATTINKARA. EXT.P2 COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BEFORE C.I. OF POLICE NEYYATTINKARA DT. 24.11.09. /TRUE COPY/ K. M. JOSEPH & M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C).No. 36216 of 2009 V - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 29th day of January, 2010 JUDGMENT Joseph, J. The prayer in the writ petition is to issue a direction to respondents 1 and 2 to give adequate and sufficient police protection to the petitioner and his family members. 2. Briefly the case of the petitioner is that he is holder of property in Sy.No. 2/17 of Ottasekharamangalam Village. He, along with his family, is residing there. According to him, title of the property was declared in his favour by the Munsiff Court, Neyyattinkara in O.S.No. 130 of 2001. It is the further case of the petitioner that the 4th respondent, who is a Member of Kallikad Panchayat, along with other respondents attempted to trespass into his W.P.(C).No. 36216 of 2009 2 property and cut open a road across the property of the petitioner. The petitioner filed complaint before the Neyyar Dam police station. Thereafter, on 21.11.2009, the third respondent along with other respondents, trespassed into the property with dangerous weapons and when the petitioner obstructed the illegal activity, the third respondent attempted to attack the petitioner, his wife and children with dangerous weapons. The petitioner reported the incident to the second respondent, but the police did not register any crime on account of the influence of respondents 3 to 7. It is further alleged that the intention of the third respondent and others is to cut open a road through the property of the petitioner. 3. A counter affidavit has been filed by respondents 3 to 7. 4. We heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for respondents 3 to 7 as also the learned Government Pleader. W.P.(C).No. 36216 of 2009 3 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that there is a decree, which has become final. It is pointed out that the second defendant is the Grama Panchayat and the 4th respondent is a Member of the said Panchayat. It is submitted that physical harm was caused to the petitioner and trees in the property were cut down and removed. According to the petitioner, the idea is to cut open a road. 6. The learned Government Pleader would point out that though the petitioner filed a complaint, enquiry was conducted and the case of the petitioner that trees are cut, were found to be false. As regards the pathway, it is actually located within the property of the Irrigation Department, it is submitted. 7. The learned counsel for the party respondents also submit that this is essentially a civil dispute. According to the respondents there is already a pathway. He would further submit that they have no intention to cause any physical harm to the petitioner. W.P.(C).No. 36216 of 2009 4 8. In the nature of the facts and the prayers made in the Writ Petition, we would think that it may not be appropriate for this Court to allow the petitioner to prosecute this petition. Petitioner has, no doubt, obtained Ext.P1 judgment. If Ext.P1 is violated, the petitioner has remedies open to him under law, which he can resort to. 9. Without prejudice to all the rights available to the petitioner in law, this Writ Petition is closed. (K. M. JOSEPH) Judge (M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS) Judge tm