IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI TUESDAY, THE 21ST DECEMBER 2010 / 30TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 37039 of 2010(D) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- T.A.MOHAMMED,IBRAHIM, AGED 60 YEARS, S/O.MR.ABDUL RAHMAN,T.C.NO.3/2750,FATHIMA COLONY, PATTOM,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADVS. SRI.C.A.MAJEED SRI.ASIF K.H. SRI. R.S.PARAMESWARAN RESPONDENTS: ------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY HOME SECRETARY,SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695001. 2. INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, POLICE HEAD QUARTERS,VAZHUTHACAUDU,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695001. 3. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,MUSEUM POLICE STATION,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695001. 4. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MUSUEM POLICE STATION,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695001. 5. A.ABDUL RASHEED ALIAS A.R.BABU, AGED 54 YEARS, S/O.ALIYARKUNJU ,CITADEL, GOLF LINKS ROAD, KOWDIAR.P.O,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-MANAGING DIRECTOR,M/S HEERA CONSTRUCTION PVT.LTD. 695001. 6. HARIDAS,FLAT NO.13-F, HEERA CENTRAL, PATTOM,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695001. 7. SHAMNAD,STAFF OF HEERA CENTRAL, PATTOM,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 8. KAMALAHASSAN,STAFF OF HEERA CENTRAL, HEERA CENTRAL,PATTOM,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SRI.T.K.VIPINDAS THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: VK K.M.JOSEPH & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. * * * * * * * * * * * * * W.P.C.No.37039 of 2010 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of December 2010 J U D G M E N T K.M.JOSEPH,J The petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following reliefs: i) A writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents 2 to 4 to afford effective and adequate police protection to the life and property of the petitioner and his family for peaceful residence of the petitioner in his property; ii) declare that the respondents 5 to 8 and their men have no right to trespass into the property of the petitioner or obstruct the ingress and egress to the property of the petitioner; iii) A writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the respondents 2 to 4 to take appropriate action in accordance with aw for preventing the illegal activities done by the 5th respondent and his henchmen including respondents 6 to 8; 2. Briefly put, the case of the petitioner is as follows: 3. The petitioner is an aged person. The petitioner and his sisters were the owners of 1.66 Acres of landed property W.P.C.No.37039 of 2010 2 comprised in survey No.1745/1,3 and 4 and 1749/2 of Kawdiyar Village, Thiruvananthapuram. It is stated that the petitioner's property is lying adjacent to the 72 cents which is handed over to M/s.Heera Constructions Pvt.Ltd., represented by its Managing Director who is the 5th respondent herein for a joint venture project. On the basis of the joint venture agreement, construction of 98 flats had been completed. It is alleged that the 5th respondent is trying to encroach into some portion of the property of the petitioner and there is some dispute and a suit is filed by the petitioner for fixation of boundary. That being so, during the first week of November 2010, respondents 7 and 8 who are aides of the 5th respondent and some of his men tried to remove the name board 'Fathima Colony' affixed on the boundary wall of the plot of the petitioner. The wife of the petitioner obstructed the attempt of respondents 7 and 8 to remove the board and hence they left after threatening the petitioner and his wife. There is reference to a conspiracy between respondents 5 to 8 and their men. It is alleged that on 11/11/2010, the 5th respondent and his men came and destroyed the name board. The petitioner produced Ext.P2, the photocopy of the printout of the email message dated 11/11/2010. The petitioner has filed Ext.P3 complaint. It is also stated that on W.P.C.No.37039 of 2010 3 23/11/2010, they had threatened the petitioner and his wife and constructed a wall. The petitioner submitted Ex.P4 complaint. 4. We have heard Adv.Sri.Majeed, the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Government Pleader. The learned Government Pleader, on instructions, submits that essentially there is a civil dispute between the parties and the earlier civil dispute is actually compromised. 5. Considering the nature of the case and the allegations in the writ petition, we would think that it is more appropriate that the petitioner is relegated to pursue the remedy open to him before the competent civil court. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to approach the competent civil court. We further direct, however, that if the petitioner complains of commission of any cognizable offence before the 4th respondent, the 4th respondent shall take action in accordance with law. (K.M.JOSEPH, JUDGE) (M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE) jsr // True Copy// PA to Judge W.P.C.No.37039 of 2010 4 W.P.C.No.37039 of 2010 5 W.P.C.No.37039 of 2010 6 K.M.JOSEPH & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. .No. of 200 ORDER/JUDGMENT 30/082010