IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI TUESDAY, THE 27TH MAY 2008 / 6TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 13454 of 2008(B) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------------- T.P.JOSE, S/O. THANKAYYAN, TC 61/2317, THOTTAM, MANACAUD P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - NOW RESIDING IN JOSE BHAVAN, PANAYARAKUNNU, KATTACHAKUZHI, VENGANNOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.D.AJITHKUMAR RESPONDENTS: ------------------------- 1. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, POOTHURA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, POOTHURA POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. SYAMALA, D/O. BHARATHY, THEKKEVILAKATHU VEEDU, THOTTAM, MANACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. BAIJU, THEKKEVILAKATHU VEEDU, THOTTAM, MANACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.N.NANDAKUMARA MENON (SR.) - R3 & R4 SRI.P.K.MANOJKUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/05/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.13454/2008 B APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF SALE DEED NO.5188/07 DTD. 13/12/2007. EXT.P2: COPY OF COMPLAINT FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2, DTD. 5/3/2008. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: EXT.R3(A): COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE R.D.O.NO.B.10477/02 DTD. 5/4/2006 ISSUED BY THE SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. EXT.R3(B): COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DTD. 2/04/2008 SUBMITTED BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT SYAMALA TO THE HON'BLE MINISTER FOR REVENUE TO DIRECT THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES. EXT.R3(C): COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 16/03/2005 IIN I.A.NO.93/2005 IN A.S.NO.17/2004 PASSED BY THE 1ST ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, TRIVANDRUM. EXT.R3(D): COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 15/3/2008 IN I.A.1774/08 IN OS.NO. 350/08 PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. EXT.R3(E): COPY OF THE RECEIPT DTD. 26/04/2008 ISSUED BY THE CITY POLICE OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, NO.515/PWS/TC-2008. /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO JUDGE Kss K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & M.C. HARI RANI,JJ ============================== W.P.(C)NO. 13454 OF 2008 ============================ DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF MAY 2008 JUDGMENT Balakrishnan Nair,J. The petitioner purchased 4.03 cents of land as per Ext.P1 assignment deed. He wanted to construct a residential building there. But respondents 3 and 4 are causing obstruction. Therefore, he filed Ext.P2 representation before the police seeking protection. According to him, respondents 3 and 4 wanted a portion of the property for them to be used as pathway. But the petitioner did not agree to that and started construction of a residential building there. Since the petitioner refused to give a portion of the land to respondents 3 and 4 to be used as pathway, they and their relatives are causing obstruction. So he requested the police to grant protection so that he can continue the construction. 2. Respondents 3 and 4 have filed a counter affidavit in which it is submitted that the petitioner purchased the property from one Smt.Sulekha who is the daughter of the first respondent in A.S.No.17/2004. The property purchased by him forms part of item W.P.(C)NO. 13454/2008 -2- No.1 in the plaint schedule property concerned in the said A.S. As per Ext.R3(c) interim order in A.S.No. 17/2004 there is an injunction against respondents in that suit restraining them from making any construction in the plaint schedule item No.1. Pending the above appeal, transfer has been effected and therefore being pendente lite transfer the petitioner is bound by Ext.R3(c). The party respondents also submitted that the petitioner filed O.S.No.350/2008 and in that suit he obtained an interim injunction against the third respondent herein. The said matter was heard and the injunction was vacated by a speaking order by the learned Munsiff holding that the property purchased by the petitioner is covered by Ext.R3(c) interim order and therefore he is not entitled to make any construction. Against the said interim order, the petitioner preferred an appeal which is pending before the District Court. 3. The above facts disclosed would show that the petitioner's attempt to get injunction against the third respondent has failed, as evident from Ext.R3(d). The said order also overruled the contention raised by the petitioner that he has got a right to make construction in the property covered by Ext.P1. In view of the said position, the police rightly kept away from the dispute. The police have no duty to interfere with the above civil dispute which is pending W.P.(C)NO. 13454/2008 -3- before the civil court. So the prayer of the petitioner for police protection fails. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. It is made clear that the writ petition is dismissed without prejudice to the contention of both sides and they can move the competent civil court for appropriate reliefs. Sd/- K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE Sd/- M.C. HARI RANI JUDGE ks. TRUECOPY P.S.TO JUDGE