IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI THURSDAY, THE 17TH JULY 2008 / 26TH ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 20536 of 2008(T) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ DR.JACOB JOHN, MEDICAL PRACTITIONER, RESIDING AT KHERVALLY, KANJIRAKODE MATTOM, AYIKKARANADU SOUTH VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF PUNARJANI PROJECTS PVT. LTD., MARADU, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.A.B.JALEEL SRI.K.THAVAMANI RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. MR. SNEHAJAN, AGED 45, INCHACKAL HOUSE, MARADU.P.O, ERNAKULAM. 2. MR.JOY, AGED 52, PUPPANAPARAMBIL HOUSE, MARADU.P.O, ERNAKULAM. 3. MR. AYYAPPAN, AGED 48, KUTTATHARAPADAM, MARADU.P.O, ERNAKULAM. 4. MR. RAJU, AGED 38, MEMBER, MARADU GRAMA PANCHAYAT, ERNAKULAM. 5. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PANANGAD POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM. 6. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, KOCHI CITY, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.SOORAJ T.ELENJICKAL FOR R1 TO 4 GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SRI.BENJAMIN PAUL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.20536/2008 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXTS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT OBTAINED FOR CONSTRUCTION OF 'FAMILY RESIDENTIAL FLAT IN THE NAME OF THE PETITIONER AND ANOTHER DT.31.10.2007. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE POLICY CERTIFICATE DT.7.3.2008. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DT.08.04.2008 ENTERED IN BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND THE 1ST RESPONDENT ON BEHALF OF 17 INDIVIDUALS. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE 'ABSTRACT VALUATION' AND THE DETAILED ESTIMATE OF 5 HOUSES FROM 37. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DT.31.5.2008 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE RESPONDENTS 5 AND 6. //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE. K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. ---------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.20536 OF 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of July, 2008 J U D G M E N T ~~~~~~~~~~~ Balakrishnan Nair, J. The petitioner though a medical practitioner is presently engaged in the construction of a residential flat in Maradu village. When piling work started people in the locality objected, so, he entered into an agreement with them, as per which, he undertook to pay the damages, if any, caused to their building. It was agreed to pay the compensation for the damages, if any, suffered on completion of the piling work. The petitioner submits, in the light of the said agreement arrived at with the neighbouring land owners, the piling work in the site was going on smoothly. While so, a group of persons trespassed into the work site on 2.7.2008 and claimed varying amounts from him as damages suffered by them. To support their claims, they also produced an assessment made by Smt.Sreeja, who is a supervisor-A grade. The petitioner submits as per the agreement entered into between him and the neighbouring land owners the assessment of damages has to be made by his engineer. But, under their threat and coercion he was compelled to issue 19 cheques to the persons who came to W.P.(C) No.20536/2008 2 the work site on 2.7.2008. On seeing this, a few more people started coming to the work site, demanding cheques. Therefore, he fled from the site. Thereafter, he has preferred Ext.P5 petition praying that the police may take appropriate action against the miscreants. Since the police did not take any action, this writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs: i) issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents 5 and 6 to give adequate and sufficient protection to the life and property of the petitioner and his employees from the respondents 1 to 4 so as to allow the petitioner to carry out the construction works in his property comprised in Re-Sy.No.314/4 of Maradu Village. ii) issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondent 5 and 6 to consider and dispose Ext.P5 complaint as early as possible in order to avoid law and order situation in the work site of the petitioner. 2. Going by the petitioners own pleadings, his grievance is the alleged unlawful claim made by the neighbouring building owners on the basis of the alleged damages suffered by them. In view of the nature of the dispute raised by the neighbouring land owners, we feel that the police cannot be asked to come to the W.P.(C) No.20536/2008 3 protection of the petitioner. Whether their claim is genuine or not, is not a matter which can be decided by the police or this Court. It is a matter for the civil court to decide. If the neighbouring land owners are unlawfully causing obstruction, notwithstanding the settlement with them, the remedy of the petitioner lies before the civil court. This Court is not justified in ordering protection to the petitioner for doing the piling work. In the normal course, piling is likely to cause damages to the buildings in the neighbouring lands. So, the police cannot be asked to drive away the persons protesting against the damages that has been caused or may be caused to their buildings. In the result, this writ petition fails and it is dismissed without prejudice to the contentions of the petitioner and his right to move the competent civil court for appropriate reliefs. (K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE) (M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE) ps