IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN FRIDAY, THE 1ST JULY 2011 / 10TH ASHADHA 1933 WP(C).No. 13498 of 2011(J) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- MUSTHAFA, S/O.PALARI KUNJUMUHAMMED, PONMUNDAM P.O., TIRUR TALUK, PIN-676 306, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.G.HARIHARAN SRI.PRAVEEN HARIHARAN RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TANUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-676 302. 2. VELU, S/O.VELAYUDHAN, EDAMARATH VEEDU, P.O.OMACHAPUZHA, THAYYALA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-676 320. 3. KUNJUMOIDEEN, S/O.MAMMOOTTY, THARAMMAL VEEDU, P.O.OMACHAPUZHA, THAYYALA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-676 320. 4. SAIDALAVI, S/O.EANTHEEN, MELAYIL VEEDU, P.O.OMACHAPUZHA, THAYYALA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-676 320. 5. HAMZAKUTTY HAJEE, S/O.MAMMAD, VADUTHALA VEEDU, P.O.OMACHAPUZHA, THAYYALA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-676 320. 6. MUHAMMED, S/O.YAHU, KOOVAPARAMBIL, P.O.OMACHAPUZHA, THAYYALA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-676 320. sts 2/- -2- WP(C)NO.13498/2011 * ADDL.R7 & R8 IMPLEADED *ADDL.R7: TALUK SURVEYOR, TIRUR TALUK, TIRUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.PIN- 676 101. *ADDL.R8: VILLAGE OFFICER, OZHUR VILLAGE, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT,PIN- 676 313. * ADDL.R7 & R8 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 24/6/2011 IN I.A.NO.10027/2011. R1 & ADDL.R7 & R8 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.C.M.CHARISMA R2 BY ADV. SRI.P.CHANDRASEKHAR R4 & R5 BY ADV.SRI.U.K.DEVIDAS THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/07/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts WP(C)NO.13498/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1 COPY OF THE BASIC TAX RECEIPT NO.6567304 DATED 21/07/2010 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER,OZHUR. P2 COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 04/04/2011 FILED UNDER RULE 43 OF THE SURVEY AND BOUNDARIES RULES. P3 COPY OF THE REQUEST DATED 07/05/2011 MADE BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT SEEKING POLICE PROTECTION FOR HIS LIFE AND FOR THE LIFE OF HIS WORKMEN. P4 COPY OF THE DOCUMENT NO.2443/2010 OF SRO THANUR. P5 COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 10/6/2011 SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE VILLAGE OFFICER OZHUR VILLAGE. P6 COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ISSUED ON 17/6/2011 BY THE VILLAGE OZHUR EVIDENCING RECEIPT OF APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER ON 17/6/2011. P7 COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE TALUK SURVEYOR ISSUED ON 27/06/2011 RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: R2(A) COPY OF THE BASIS TAX RECEIPT DATED 7/4/2010 ISSUED BY VILLAGE OFFICER, OZHUR TO 2ND RESPONDENT. R2(B) COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 30/11/1997 IN OS NO.319/1997 OF MUNSIFF COURT, TIRUR. R2(C) COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 3/8/2010 OF VILLAGE OFFICER, OZHUR TO SUB REGISTRAR, TIRUR. /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO.JUDGE sts R. BASANT & K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ........................................... W.P.(C).NO.13498 OF 2011 ............................................. Dated this the 1st day of July, 2011. JUDGMENT Basant, J: The petitioner has come to this Court seeking issue of directions under Article 226 of the Constitution to respondent No.1 to afford protection to the petitioner to be present in a property when the 7th respondent Taluk Surveyor inspects the property. 2. According to the petitioner, there is a dispute between the petitioner on the one hand and respondents 2 to 6 on the other. For a proper resolution of this dispute, the petitioner has requested the Taluk Surveyor to inspect the property. We are informed that the Taluk Surveyor proposes to inspect the property on 5.7.2011. The short prayer of the petitioner is that he may be permitted to be present when the Taluk Surveyor inspects the property and police protection may be afforded to protect his life and person when he so proceeds to attend the inspection by the Taluk Surveyor. W.P.(C).NO.13498 OF 2011 : 2 : 3. Respondents 2, 4 and 5 have entered appearance. They submit that there is no semblance of any threat posed against the petitioner. He can visit the property when the Taluk Surveyor - 7th respondent inspects the property. But the learned counsel for respondent No.2 raises very serious objections on what the Taluk Surveyor proposes to do. According to the learned counsel for the second respondent, the 7th respondent has not made it clear as to what his mission is. If the Taluk Surveyor wants to inspect the property to identify the survey boundaries, respondent No.2 has no objection at all, but his right to challenge the action taken by the Taluk Surveyor after such inspection may be left open. This is the only prayer on behalf of the second respondent. 4. The learned counsel for respondents 4 and 5 submits that respondents 4 and 5 are only formal parties to that inspection by the Taluk Surveyor as they also hold adjacent properties. Counter affidavit has also been filed by them, it is submitted. They have also objection in the petitioner being present at the time of inspection by the 7th W.P.(C).NO.13498 OF 2011 : 3 : respondent. 5. We are satisfied in these circumstances that appropriate directions can be issued. In the result: a. This petition is allowed. b. The first respondent is directed to afford protection to the petitioner to be present in the property when the 7th respondent conducts inspection on 5.7.2011. c. We make it clear (though it is not strictly necessary) that respondents 2 to 5 shall not in any way be bound by the result of such inspection by the 7th respondent and their option to challenge the conclusion/action, if any of the 7th respondent in accordance with law, shall remain unfettered by the protection hereby granted. 6. Hand over a copy of this judgment to the learned Government Pleader. Sd/= R. BASANT, JUDGE. Sd/= K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE. cl /true copy/ P.S. to Judge.