IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN MONDAY, THE 23RD MAY 2011 / 2ND JYAISHTA 1933 WP(C).No. 12908 of 2011(K) ------------------------- PETITIONER : -------------------- OMANAN E.MORAES, HOLY FAMILY HOME, TC 26/1425(2), RRA-F-117, RISHIMANGALAM, VANCHIYOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 035. BY ADV. SRI.SHAJIN S. HAMEED RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KAZHAKUTTOM CIRCLE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-695 582. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KAZHAKUTTOM POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-695 582. 3. JUSTUS FERNANDEZ, S/O. LAWRENCE FERNANDEZ, ORCHID BEAUTY PARLOR AND FANCY, MENAMKULAM, KAZHAKUTTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 582. 4. FELIX MORAES, MANGALA BHAVANAM, VILAYILKULAM, MENAMKULAM VILLAGE, KAZHAKUTTOM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 582. R1 & R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT. C.M. CHARISMA R4 BY ADV. SRI.R.S.KALKURA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/05/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Mn ...2/- WP(C).No. 12908 of 2011(K) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 : COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE LAND TRIBUNAL DATED 22/5/2001. EXT.P2 : COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 2/4/2011 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: EXT.R4(a) : COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN O.S. NO. 336 OF 1998 OF MUNSIFF'S COURT, TRIVANDRUM DATED 7.2.1992. EXT.R4(b) : COPY OF THE DECREE IN O.S. NO. 336 OF 1998 OF MUNSIFF'S COURT, TRIVANDRUM DATED 7.2.1992. EXT.R4(c) : COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 1.3.2000 . EXT.R4(d) : COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S. 817 OF 2006 MUNSIFF'S COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. EXT.R4(e) : COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 22.5.2001 OBTAINED BY THE PETITIONER FROM THE LAND TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. EXT.R4(f) : COPY OF THE ORDER IN SM 9 OF 1998 DATED 22.5.2001 ON THE FILE OF THE LAND TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. EXT.R4(g) : COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 6.7.2009 IN F.A.O 189 OF 2007 OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA. EXT.R4(h) COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. EXT.R4(i) COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT AND HIS MOTHER DATED 6.8.2007. EXT.R4(j) COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT AND HIS MOTHER BEFORE THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER DATED 13.8.2007. EXT.R4(k) COPY OF THE ARGUMENT NOTE SUBMITTED INB/7699/07 DATED 13.8.2007. Contd.... WP(C).No. 12908 of 2011(K) EXT.R4(l) COPY OF THE ORDER IN WPC NO. 25149 OF 2007 DATED 18.8.2007 OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA. EXT.R4(m) COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION REPORT NO. 511 OF 2010 OF THE KAZHAKUTTOM POLICE STATION. EXT.R4(n) COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S. 372 OF 2011 OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, TRIVANDRUM. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE Mn R.BASANT & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------- WPC No.12908 of 2011 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd May, 2011 JUDGMENT Basant, J. The petitioner has come to this Court complaining of contumacious and culpable conduct on the part of respondents 3 and 4. An order of police protection under Article 226 is claimed by the petitioner against such conduct on the part of respondents 3 and 4. 2. According to the petitioner, he is the owner of the property covered by Ext.P1 certificate. Respondents 3 and 4 are allegedly not permitting the petitioner to enter into such land. They are cutting and removing the trees from the property. They are also attempting to remove sand from the property. It is in these circumstances that the petitioner has sought issue of directions under Article 226 of the Constitution. 3. Service is complete. Respondent No.4 has entered appearance through counsel. The learned counsel for the fourth respondent submits that the petitioner and the third WPC No.12908 of 2011 2 respondent are acting in collision. The fourth respondent is not attempting to remove any sand from such property. According to the fourth respondent, there are civil disputes between the parties about the land in question. Parties are before the civil court and it is for the parties to seek appropriate specific directions from the civil court. That having not been done, the petitioner is not entitled to come to this Court complaining of threat to life. 4. Relief is claimed only regarding threat to life. The learned Government Pleader after taking instructions submits that in the perception of the police officials - respondents 1 and 2, there is no threat to the life of the petitioner from respondents 3 and 4. It is true that there are civil disputes between the parties. They have to get their civil disputes resolved by seeking appropriate orders from the civil court in the pending proceedings or in the proceedings to be initiated. At any rate, respondents 1 and 2 shall ensure that there is no threat to the life of the petitioner. It is not necessary to issue any specific directions to afford protection to the life of the petitioner as no such imminent threat is apprehended. Police shall do the needful if there be any such threat. Though there are WPC No.12908 of 2011 3 disputes between the parties, specific threat to life is not perceived by the police officials. 5. We have considered all the relevant inputs. We need not express any opinion on merits about the civil dispute between the parties. It is for the parties to seek appropriate directions from the civil court regarding their rights for enjoyment of the property in question. In the circumstances of the case, we do not find any reason to issue any specific directions to afford protection for the life of the petitioner. We accept the submission of the learned Government Pleader on behalf of respondents 1 and 2 that if there be any such threats, necessary and needful action shall be taken by respondents 1 and 2. 6. Accepting that submissions of the learned Government Pleader on behalf of respondents 1 and 2, this writ petition is dismissed. R.BASANT JUDGE K.SURENDRA MOHAN JUDGE css/