IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI MONDAY, THE 26TH MAY 2008 / 5TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 15470 of 2008(N) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ 1. HUSSAIN, S/O.MOHAMMED, THOOMPIL HOUSE, TIRUR AMSOM, THUMARAKKAVU DESOM, P.O.POOKKAYIL BAZAR, TIRUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. MOHAMMED GOUSE, S/O.MOHAMMEDALI, MANGALA HOUSE, TRIKKANDIYUR AMSOM DESOM, TIRUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRIC.M.MOHAMMED IQUABAL RESPONDENTS: ---------------- 1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TANUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TANUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 3. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, TIRUR, MALAPPURAM. 4. PADATHARA NABEESU, W/O.HASSAN, PADATHARA HOUSE, POST PUTHENTHERU, TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 5. NEYYAMPARAMBIL SHAREEFA @ MALU, W/O.KOLADI IBRAHIMKUTTY, TANALUR AMSOM MEENADATHUR DESOM, POST MEENADATHUR, TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 6. KOLADI HAFSATH, D/O.KOLADI MOHAMMED, TANALUR AMSOM MEENADATHUR DESOM, POST MEENADATHUR TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 7. KOLADI PATHUMMAKKUTTY, W/O.MOHAMMED, TANALUR AMSOM MEENADATHUR DESOM, POST MEENADATHUR TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/05/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & M.C.HARI RANI JJ. ----------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C)No.15470 OF 2008 ----------------------------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 26th DAY OF MAY, 2008 J U D G M E N T Balakrishnan Nair, J. The petitioners have approached this Court praying to issue a writ of mandamus against respondents 1 to 3 directing them to give effective and adequate protection to the petitioners and to their workers to do agricultural operations in their property including fencing of the property for protecting the same. The petitioners purchased the property from one Mr.Koladi Mohammed Bava. His second wife, the 7th respondent raised some dispute regarding the right of the petitioners over the said property. So, the petitioners moved the civil court and the civil court granted an injunction order. On appeal, a consent order has been passed, a copy of which is produced as Exhibit P3. Recently, while the petitioners tried to do agricultural operations in the property using a tractor, respondents 4 and 5 caused obstruction to the same. 5th respondent is the daughter-in-law of the 7th respondent and the 4th respondent is her mother. So, the W.P.(C)No.15470/08 -2- petitioners filed Exhibits P4 and P5 representations before the police. Alleging that the police did not extend any help to remove the obstruction, this writ petition is filed. 2. This being a civil dispute, the police cannot be directed to interfere with it. The police have no duty to adjudicate the claim of the petitioners over the property and to extend protection to them on finding that respondents 4 and 5 have no right over the disputed property. Since the police have no such jurisdiction or duty, this Court cannot issue any direction to the police to help the petitioners. Therefore, the prayer in this writ petition cannot be granted. The petitioners can get effective remedy from the civil court and they may invoke the said remedy available to them . Without prejudice to that right and their contentions, the writ petition is dismissed. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR,JUDGE. M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE. dsn