IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM WEDNESDAY, THE 7TH SEPTEMBER 2011 / 16TH BHADRA 1933 WP(C).No. 19779 of 2011(V) -------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- ADVT. V. EAPEN MATHAI, AGED 81 YEARS, S/O. LATE ADV.V.J.MATHAI, RESIDING AT VETTATH HOUSE, NO.76, GIRINAGAR, KADAVANTHRA, ELAMKULAM VILLAGE,KANAYANNOOR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.VETTATH EAPEN MATHAI RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-1. 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MULANTHURUTHY POLICE STATION,MULANTHURUTHY-685051 3. DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, MUVATTUPUZHA-685051 4. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ERNAKULAM(RURAL) ALUVA-683006 5. GEORGE ABNU @ GEORGE.A.VETTATH, AGED 45 YEARS, S/O. LATE ABNU C. VETTATH, 94, KAIRALI APARTMENT, PANAMBILLY NAGAR, ERNAKULAM-682036. 6. MRS. MARIAMMA ABNU, AGED 69 YEARS, WIDOW OF ABNU C. VETTATH, 94, KAIRALI APARTMENT, PANAMBILLY NAGAR, ERNAKULAM-682036. 7. MRS. ELIZABETH ALEXANDER, AGED 38 YEARS, D/O. LATE ABNU.C.VETTATH, 94, KAIRALI APARTMENT, PANAMBILLYNAGAR, ERNAKULAM-682036. WP(C).No. 19779 of 2011(V) -2- 8. THOMAS.A. VETTATH, AGED 41 YEARS, S/O. ABNU .C.VETTATH, 94, KAIRALI APARTMENT, PANAMBILLY NAGAR, ERNAKULAM-682036. NOW WORKING AT CONDOR BUILDING, CONTRACTING COMPANY, P.O.BOX NO.5690, DUBAI-U.A.E. 9. MRS. SUSAN PLATO, @ USHA, AGED 49 YEARS, D/O. LATE ABNU.C.VETTATH, KULANGARA HOUSE, CHURCH ROAD, NORTH PARAVUR,PIN-683513. ADV. SRI.ABEY TOM FOR R5,6,8 SRI.O.F.JUSTIN FOR R5,6,8 GOVT. PLEADER SMT.C.M.CHARISMA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/09/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 19779 of 2011(V) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXTS EXT.P1:- TRUE COPY OF THE RESURVEY SKETCH WHICH WAS PREPARED AS PER THE SETTLEMENT DEED DATED 01/10/2005. EXT.P2:- TRUE COPY OF THE FIR INC RIME NO.99/07. EXT.P3:- TRUE COPY OF THE COMMISSIONERS REPORT. EXT.P4:- TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 14/10/2005 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE COLLECTOR BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P5:- TRUE COPY OF THE INJUNCTION ORDER IN I.A. NO.7375/90 IN O.S.1890/90. EXT.P6:- TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 10/07/11 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P7:- TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON JUDGMENT DATED 23/12/05 PASSED BY THE 2ND ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF'S COURT. EXT.P8:- TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED ON 14/05/07 BY THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, SURVEY & LAND RECORDS. EXT.P9:- TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON JUDGMENT DATED 12/11/10 OF THE FIRST ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE. EXT.P10:- TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.402/05 OF MULANTHURUTHY POLICE STATION. EXT.P11:- TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.12 S1-11015/11 DATED 23/08/11 ISSUED BY THE TALUK SURVEYOR KANAYANNUR. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & C. K. ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ------------------------------------------------ W. P. C. No.19779 of 2011 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 7th day of September, 2011 JUDGMENT Abdul Rehim, J Petitioner, a senior citizen at the age of 81 years, is approaching this court seeking police protection to his life and properties. Inter alia, the petitioner is seeking protection for the construction of compound wall on the boundary of property owned by him along with his family members, having an extent of 4 Acres 63 Cents, comprised in Sy. No.1588 of Mulanthuruthy village. Allegation is that the respondents 5 to 9, who are owners of the neighbouring properties are creating obstructions to the construction of the compound wall and they are removing boundary stones put on, under the guise of some illegal claims with respect to right over the property. 2. It is stated that with respect to removal of the boundary stones a criminal case was already registered at W. P. C. No.19779 of 2011 -2- Mulanthuruthy Police Station, as Crime No.99/07 as evident from Ext.P2 FIR. It is further stated that against the illegal obstructions and the unlawful acts on the part of the respondents 5 to 9, the petitioner had filed O.S.1890/90 before the Civil Court, seeking permanent prohibitory injunction. The respondents have also filed suits as O.S.1932/90 and O.S. 1965/90. The above suits were disposed of through a common judgment (Ext.P7) wherein a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction was issued against the respondents. It is also stated that the decree in question was confirmed by the Appellate Court as per Ext.P9 Judgment. According to the petitioner, a dispute raised by the respondents with respect to the boundary of the property in question, before the Deputy Director of Survey and Land Records, Ernakulam also stands dismissed, as per Ext.P8. Grievance voiced by the petitioner is that inspite of the judgment and decree passed by the competent civil court as well as decision taken by the competent authorities of the Department of Survey and Land Records, W. P. C. No.19779 of 2011 -3- the respondents are creating illegal obstructions. According to the petitioner, inspite of Ext.P6 complaint submitted before the Director General of Police, copy of which were submitted also to respondents 2 to 4, no action was taken to afford protection. Hence, this Writ Petition is filed. 3. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondents 5 to 9 it is contended that there exists a dispute with respect to ownership and possession of a portion of the property covered under Ext.P1 document. However, the respondents concede that all the allegations raised regarding threat and intimidation to the life of the petitioner is absolutely baseless. It is further stated that the respondents have no intention to cause any sort of threat, intimidation or harassment to the person of the petitioner or to his family members. 4. Sri.Mathai Eapen Vettath, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that on the basis of a request made by the petitioner, the Taluk Surveyor had conducted measurement and demarcated the boundary recently. It is W. P. C. No.19779 of 2011 -4- complained that, still the respondents are causing obstruction for construction of the compound wall on the demarcated boundary and the boundary stones were removed again. 5. Considering the facts and circumstances as narrated above and also the rival contentions, we are of the considered opinion that the petitioner has to execute the decree obtained in his favour under Ext.P7 judgment which is confirmed in appeal through Ext.P9, if it had attained finality. On the basis of the decree of permanent prohibitory injunction obtained, it is left open to the petitioner to approach the execution court seking assistance for construction of the compound wall for protecting his property. If there is any obstruction or hindrance in execution of the decree, the civil court is competent to provide assistance by deputing an officer of the court/Advocate Commissioner, if necessary by directing to afford police protection. 6. Since the matter is in the nature of a civil dispute W. P. C. No.19779 of 2011 -5- and since it will fall within the realm of execution of a decree, it may not be proper and justified for this court to direct police protection. Under such circumstances, the person aggrieved should take recourse to remedy available under common law and invoking jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 cannot be permitted. Hence, we make it clear that the petitioner will be at liberty to seek appropriate relief through execution of the decree. We also make it clear that if any execution petition is filed, it will be left open to the execution court to order measurement/re-measurement of the property if required, by deputing an Advocate Commissioner assisted by a competent surveyor, if necessary with police assistance, to fix the alignment of the compound wall to be constructed. 7. With respect to the question regarding protection to the life of the petitioner, we record the statement made on behalf of the respondents 5 to 9 that they have no intention to cause any threat or intimidation either to the petitioner or to any of his family members. Learned Government Pleader W. P. C. No.19779 of 2011 -6- appearing for respondents 1 to 4 submitted that the police officers will take necessary steps if any intimation regarding any threat to life if reported. 8. Under the above mentioned circumstances, we dispose of the Writ Petition directing respondents 2 and 3 to take effective steps if any intimation is received with respect to any threat or intimidation to the lives of the petitioner or his family members, to afford protection. They should also ensure law and order situation and avert any breach of peace, emerging out of the dispute between the petitioner and the contesting respondents with respect to the property in question. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE C. K. ABDUL REHIM JUDGE kns/- W. P. C. No.19779 of 2011 -7-