IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH MARCH 2011 / 25TH PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 6658 of 2011(F) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ SARAMMA, AGED 58 YEARS, W/O.ISSAC, RESIDING AT CHEMPAKASSERIL HOUSE, PULIANTHANAM KARA, ENANALLOOR VILLAGE, MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.PEEYUS A.KOTTAM RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------- 1. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, POTHANICAD POLICE STATION, POTHANICAD, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT- 686 671. 2. C.V.KURIAKOSE, AGED 65 YEARS, RESIDING AT CHITTETHU HOUSE, PULINTHANAM KARA, ENANALLOOR VILLAGE, MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT- 686 661. R1 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.T.K.VIPINDAS R2 BY ADV. SRI.S.SHYAM, SRI.BOBBYMATHEW KOOTHATTUKULAM. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.6658/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE PARTITION DEED NO.1155/2009 DTD. 28.8.09 OF POTHANICADU SUB REGISTRAR OFFICE. P2:- COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.1612/2009 DTD. 23.11.2009 POTHANICADU SUB REGISTRAR OFFICE. P3:- COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 18.10.2010 OF MUNSIFF COURT MUVATTUPUZHA IN IA. NO.1515/2010 IN OS. NO.253/2010. P4:- COPY OF THE COMMISSION REPORT DTD. 2.7.2010 IN IA. 1516/2010 IN OS. 253/2010 SUBMITTED BY ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER IN OS. NO.253/2010. P5:- COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 22.12.2010 SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER BEFORE IST RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS R2- COPY OF THE PLAINT IN OS. 253/2010 ON THE FILES OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, MUVATTUPUZHA. R2(b):- COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY the 2ND RESPONDENT IN EXT.R2 (a) CASE. R2(c):-COP OBJECTION TO THE COMMISSION REPORT IN EXT.R2(a) CASE. R2(d):- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 27.1.2011 IN OS. 253/2010 ON THE FILES OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, MUVATTUPUZHA. TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE tss R.BASANT & K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------------------------ W.P(C) NO: 6658 OF 2011 F ----------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 16th March, 2011. JUDGMENT Basant, J. The petitioner has come to this Court with this petition for issue of directions to the first respondent to afford police protection to the petitioner to enable her to draw a water pipeline through Ext.P2 property to Ext.P1 property belonging to her without any obstruction from the second respondent. According to the petitioner she further apprehends that agricultural operations in Ext.P1 may be obstructed by the second respondent. There was an earlier litigation between the parties and that suit filed by the petitioner was withdrawn as not pressed. 2. According to the petitioner Ext.P1 property belongs to her. Ext.P2 property has been purchased by her for the purpose of using the same as access to Ext.P1 property. Second respondent has no right or claim of right over her property. But she apprehends that the second respondent may obstruct the drawal of water pipeline through Exts.P2 to P1 property and may WPC 6658/2011 2 obstruct agricultural operations in Ext.P1 property. 3. Second respondent has entered appearance. The learned counsel for the second respondent categorically undertakes that enjoyment of Exts.P1 and P2 property by the petitioner shall not in any way be obstructed by the second respondent. Petitioner is at liberty to draw water pipeline through Ext.P2 to Ext.P1 property and enjoy Ext.P1 property in the manner that she likes. The second respondent does not intend to raise any objections to either course adopted by the petitioner. It is so stipulated by the counsel for the second respondent. 4. What then is the dispute? We find that virtually there is no dispute between the parties. Learned Govt. Pleader on behalf of the first respondent submits that in the perception of the first respondent there is no possibility of any threat to the life or property of the petitioner. 5. We take note of the submissions of the counsel for the petitioner. We take note of the submissions of the counsel for the second respondent. We take note further of the submissions of the learned Govt. Pleader. We are not persuaded to agree that any directions under Art.226 of the Constitution can need or WPC 6658/2011 3 deserve to be issued. In the absence of any reasonable perception or threat to life or property of the petitioner we are not persuaded to issue any directions under Art.226. This petition is accordingly dismissed. R.BASANT Judge K. SURENDRA MOHAN Judge jj WPC 6658/2011 4