IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.HARILAL WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD NOVEMBER 2011 / 2ND AGRAHAYANA 1933 WP(C).No. 29554 of 2011(T) ------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------ A.P. MOHAMMED, S/O. BEERANKUTTY, NADUVA AMSOM DESOM, PARAPPANANGADI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.K.MOHAMED RAVUF RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. SHEIKINTE PURAKKAL KUNHI MOIDEEN KUTTY, S/O. CHEKKUTTY, NEDUVE AMSOM, DESOM, PARAPPANANGADI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676303. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PARAPPANANGADI-676303. ADV. SRI.SUMODH MADHAVAN NAIR FOR R1 SR. GOVT. PLEADER SRI.M.K.ABOOBACKER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 29554 of 2011(T) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXTS EXT.P1:- TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S. NO.3/2000 OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, PARAPPANANGADI. EXT.P2:- TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT IN OS. NO.3/2000. EXT.P3:- TRUE COPY OF THE COMMISSION REPORT. EXT.P4:- TRUE COPY OF THE COMMISSION REPORT. EXT.P5:- TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN AS NO.67/04 OF THE SUB COURT. EXT.P6:- TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.335/11 OF PARAPPANANGADI POLICE. //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & K. HARILAL, JJ. ------------------------------------------------ W. P. C. No.29554 of 2011 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 23rd day of November, 2011 JUDGMENT Pius C. Kuriakose, J The petitioner who was a successful party before the competent civil court in Ext.P1 suit and Ext.P5 appeal both preferred by the party respondents against him has approached this Court complaining that despite the decision in the suit and appeal in his favour, the 1st respondent is creating all sorts of trouble to the petitioner in the matter of enjoyment of his property. Even though the 1st respondent was served with notice and he entered appearance before this Court through counsel, no counter affidavit has been filed by him. Thus, the allegations in the Writ Petition stands practically established against him by non-traverse. The prayers in the Writ Petition are the following:- “ (i) To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the 2nd respondent to make an enquiry into Ext.P6 W. P. C. No.29554 of 2011 -2- complaint and take necessary action thereon. (ii) To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the 2nd respondent to give adequate, sufficient and meaningful police protection to the petitioner to protect the properties of the petitioner comprised in R.S. No.292/1, 292/2 and 292/4 of Neduva village.” 2. We shall first deal with prayer No.1. The case of the petitioner is that as the police did not take action upon the petition filed by him, he approached the local Magistrate who forwarded his complaint under Section 156(3) Cr. P.C. to the 2nd respondent, Sub Inspector of Police. The 2nd respondent registered Ext.P6 crime. Thereafter nothing was done. No investigation is being conducted and no charge sheet has been laid. Sri.M.K.Aboobacker, the learned senior Government Pleader submitted that the investigation into Ext.P6 crime is going on seriously. The crime was registered only on 26/09/11. The 2nd respondent is ready to obey any direction which this Court may pass in respect of the investigation into Ext.P6. W. P. C. No.29554 of 2011 -3- 3. We shall now deal with prayer No.2. The petitioner has no positive decree in his favour against the party respondent. He places reliance on the negative decree passed against the 1st respondent in O.S.3/2000 which was confirmed in appeal by Ext.P5. The party respondent claimed rights over 14 cents from out of the total extent of property belonging to the petitioner. At best it can be said that the 1st respondent's claim over 14 cents which was subject matter of Exts.P2 and P5 was turned down. The allegation of the petitioner is that the 1st respondent is attempting to trespass into properties belonging to him. We are sure that the petitioner's remedy in respect of such apprehended trespass or any illegality in respect of the property belonging to the petitioner lies not before us but before a competent civil court. We relegate the petitioner to such remedy in respect of the reliefs which is claimed in respect of the property. 4. Coming to prayer No.1 in the Writ Petition, we direct the 2nd respondent to expedite the investigation of Ext.P6 crime and to submit Final Report or Refer Report as the case W. P. C. No.29554 of 2011 -4- may be at the earliest. We also direct the 2nd respondent to entertain complaints if any submitted by the petitioner regarding threat and contumacious acts from the part of the 1st respondent, to conduct enquiry into such complaints and to take such action as is warranted by the facts revealed out in the enquiry for protecting the life and limbs of the petitioner. At any rate, there will be a direction to the 2nd respondent to keep vigil over the petitioner and the 1st respondent and the properties in question and to ensure that the dispute between them over the property does not give rise to any law and order situation or violence. Sd/- PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE Sd/- K. HARILAL JUDGE kns/- //True Copy// P. A. TO JUDGE W. P. C. No.29554 of 2011 -5-