IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI THURSDAY, THE 9TH DECEMBER 2010 / 18TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 36363 of 2010(U) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------------- SRI.KORA MANUAL, S/O.KORA, CHILAMBIL HOUSE, THAMBALAKKATTU KARA, KANJIRAPPALLY. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE THOMAS (MEVADA), SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.SUSHEEL JOSEPH CYRIAC SRI.MANU GEORGE KURUVILLA RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. THAMIM ANSARI, S/O.LATE SHAHUL HAMEED, SEETHAKADI STREET, RAJAPALAYAM TOWN, RAJAPALAYAM TALUK, MADURAI DISTRICT. PIN - 626 117. 2. S.NAGAYYA, S/O.PERIYAKARUPA THEVAR, TKS UDAYAKUMAR ESTATE, AANAVILAASAM SASTHANADA P.O., KATTAPPANA, PIN - 685 535. 3. V.PERUMAL, S/O.VEERAPPA KOUNTER, AANAVILAASAM, SASTHANADA P.O., KATTAPPANA, PIN - 685 535. 4. VANARAJ, S/O.MADASWAMY, AANAVILAASAM, SASTHANADA P.O., KATTAPPANA, PIN - 685 535. 5. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KUMILY POLICE STATION, IDUKKI DT. PIN - 685 509. R5 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.T.K.VIPINDAS. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.M.JOSEPH & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. ------------------------------------------------------ W.P.(C) No.36363 of 2010-U ---------------------------------------------- Dated, this the 9th day of December, 2010 J U D G M E N T K.M.Joseph, J. Petitioner has approached this Court on the following allegations. Petitioner is having a cardamom plantation obtained under Ext.P1. Petitioner's sons also have property adjacent to Ext.P1 property. They are cultivating the property. The Ist respondent and family had about 7.5 acres of land near the property of the petitioner. During the year 1990s the price of cardamom was very low. The Ist respondent could not maintain his garden and it was in a poor state. In January 1995 the Ist respondent approached the petitioner's son Sojan and offered the property to him. An agreement was executed and Sojan was put in possession. Payments due under the agreement was made except for a small amount. A suit for specific performance was filed by Sojan in 1999 and written statement was filed in 2008. The suit was dismissed and the RFA filed is pending. The Ist WPC No. 36363/2010 -2- respondent has not taken any steps for recovery of possession. It is stated that the Ist respondent has intimate connection with the ruling politicians and the muscle men in the locality. With their help he trespassed into the petitioner's property on 1.12.2010 and destroyed the lock of the shed. A crime was registered as Ext.P2. Petitioner filed Ext.P3 complaint and is before us seeking the following relief: 'to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or such other writ order or direction compelling the fifth respondent to act on Ext.P3 complaint and extent effective and adequate police protection to the life of the petitioner, sons, his workers as well as the property of the petitioner covered by Ext.P1 from the threats of respondents 1 to 4 or their men or agents.' 2. We heard Sri.Shaji P Chaly, the learned counsel for the petitioner. The learned Government Pleader was also asked to get instructions. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner points out that having regard to the facts this Court may interfere. He submits that petitioner has fundamental right and that the Ist respondent has no right over the property of the petitioner covered by Ext.P1. WPC No. 36363/2010 -3- 4. Learned Government Pleader submits that two crimes are registered against the party respondents. He further submits that there are some property disputes. 5. We must remind ourselves that this is a case where essentially the prayer is against respondents 1 to 4. Though there is allegation that the Ist respondent has intimate connection with ruling politicians and muscle men in the locality it is not a case where the allegation is that large number of persons without semblance of any right is doing any illegal activity in respect of the petitioner's property. Already the police is seized of the matter and they have acted in respect of the complaint. We would think that the petitioner has effective alternative remedy of approaching the civil Court and obtaining an order of injunction. If the order is passed after hearing both sides, petitioner can obtain an order for police protection from the civil Court. That stage has not reached in this case. We would think that we should relegate the petitioner to approach the competent civil Court. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to seek appropriate relief from the WPC No. 36363/2010 -4- civil Court. However, we hasten to add that if the petitioner complains before the 5th respondent about commission of any cognizable offence by respondents 1 to 4, the 5th respondent shall take action on such complaint in accordance with law. (K.M.JOSEPH) JUDGE. (M.C.HARI RANI) JUDGE. MS