IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD JANUARY 2008 / 3RD MAGHA 1929 WP(C).No. 641 of 2008(B) ------------------------ PETITIONER: ------------ PRAKASAN NAIR, KONATTU KALAPURACKAL, NOW RESIDING AT PRAJITH NIVAS, EZHUPUNNA P.O., ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.G.UNNIKRISHNAN NAIR RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, AROOR. 2. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KUTHIATHODE. 3. KUNHAPPAN, S/O. PAINGAN, MADATHIL PADIJATTANIKATHIL, EZHUPUNNA P.O., ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 4. BABU, S/O. PARAMU, MADATHIL PADINJATTANIKATHIL, EZHUPUNNA P.O., ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 5. THANKACHAN, S/O. CISSILY, VELLAYIL PADINJATTINAKATHU, EZHUPUNNA P.O., ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. R1 & R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. BENNY GERVASIS BY ADV. SRI.P.SANTHOSH KUMAR (PANAMPALLI NAGAR) SRI.LUIZ GODWIN D'COUTH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) 641/08 Appendix Petitioner's Exts: Ext.P1 true copy of the basic tax receipt No.59443/5944249 dated 28.6.2006 issued from the Ezhupunna Village office to the petitioner. Ext.P2 true copy of the agreement reached between the petitioner and the 3rd respondent on 2.1.2002. Ext.P3 true copy of the complaint submitted by the petitioner on 1.1.2008 before 1st respondent. K.Balakrishnan Nair & P.N.Ravindran, JJ. ======================== W.P(C).No.641 of 2008 ======================== Dated this the 23rd day of January, 2008. JUDGMENT Balakrishnan Nair,J. The petitioner claims that he is the owner of a plot of land having an extent of 12 cents. He has constructed a residential building there. He is residing their with his family. He wanted to construct a compound wall for the said plot. On the eastern side of the plot he has given a pathway with a width of 3 feet for the use of respondents 3 to 5 and others. The foundation for the compound wall was laid earlier. There was no objection to the same. Because of the financial difficulties, he could not continue with the construction. When he recently resumed the construction on the foundation already laid, respondents 3 to 5 started causing obstruction. So he filed Ext.P3 representation before the police seeking police protection to complete the construction of the compound wall and also to protect his life and that of his family members. Since the police did not take any WP(C) 641/08 -: 2 :- action, this writ petition is filed seeking appropriate reliefs. 2. The learned Government Pleader upon instructions submitted that the contentions raised by the petitioner are false. Respondents 3 to 5 have filed a counter affidavit in which it is submitted that the petitioner tried to construct the compound wall reducing the width of the existing pathway and the local people objected to the construction of the compound wall. So, it was stopped. Now he started construction of the compound wall again. 3. Having regard to the nature of the dispute involved in this case, no direction can be issued to the police as claimed by the petitioner. The main grievance of the petitioner is that the police is not assisting him to construct the compound wall. The police cannot decide where is the boundary line and thereafter permit him to construct the compound wall. So, in the absence of any duty in the police in this regard and a corresponding right in the petitioner, this Court is not justified in issuing any direction. If this Court issues direction to the police to help the petitioner to construct the compound wall, the local people will be seriously prejudiced and they will be left with no remedy also. WP(C) 641/08 -: 3 :- In view of the above position, the writ petition is dismissed without prejudiced to the contentions of the petitioner and his right to move the competent civil court for appropriate reliefs. K.Balakrishnan Nair, Judge. P.N.Ravindran, Judge. ess 24/1