IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI WEDNESDAY, THE 26TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 5TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 WP(C).No. 34942 of 2008(I) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- PUTHUKKOLLI AMINA, W/O.LATE AHAMMEDKUTTY MASTER, VETTIKKATHIRI, ERNAD TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.SAJU.S.A RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. AALI, S/O.THOTTASSERI THENNADAN KUNHAPPA, VETTIKKATHIRI, VALLUVANGAD, ERNAD TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. MOOSA, S/O.THOTTASSERI THENNADAN KUNHAPPA, VETTIKKATHIRI, VALLUVANGAD, ERNAD TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 3. SHANAVAS, S/O.THOTTASSERI THENNADAN KUNHAPPA, VETTIKKATHIRI, VALLUVANGAD, ERNAD TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 4. ABBAS, S/O.THOTTASSERI THENNADAN KUNHAPPA, VETTIKKATHIRI, VALLUVANGAD, ERNAD TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 5. KUNHAYISHA, W/O.THOTTASSERI THENNADAN KUNHAPPA, VETTIKKATHIRI, VALLUVANGAD, ERNAD TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 6. S.P. OF POLICE, OFFICE OF POLICE SUPERINTENDENT, UPHILL, MALAPPURAM. W.P.(C) NO.34942/2008 7. C.I. OF POLICE, PANDIKKAD POLICE STATION, PANDIKKAD, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 8. S.I. OF POLICE, PANDIKKAD POLICE STATION, PANDIKKAD, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. GOVT.PLEADER, SRI.BENJAMIN PAUL. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. ---------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 34942 OF 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 26th day of November, 2008 J U D G M E N T ~~~~~~~~~~~ Balakrishnan Nair, J. The petitioner claims ownership and possession over 1.0850 hectare of land in Resurvey No.172/2 in Vetikkathiri amsom and desom of Ernad Taluk in Malappuram District. The husband of the 5th respondent and father of the respondents 1 to 4 filed O.S.No.613/1989 before the Munsiff Court, Manjeri, seeking an injunction against the petitioner and her son restraining them from trespassing into the plaint schedule property. The petitioner claims the property scheduled to the said suit is the very same property mentioned above, which is in the possession and ownership of the petitioner. The above suit was dismissed for default. Later, when the petitioner and her workmen tried to undertake agricultural operations in that property, the respondents 1 to 5 herein tried to cause obstruction to the same. She moved the police. She submits, W.P.(C) No.34942/2008 2 for one or two days the police was available to maintain law and order. But, thereafter, the police did not turn up. Therefore, the petitioner cannot carryout agricultural operations in her property. So, she preferred Ext.P4 representation before the District Superintendent of police seeking police protection for carrying out agricultural operations in the aforementioned property. Alleging that the police did not take any action, this writ petition is filed. 2. Having regard to the powers of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this writ petition is ill- conceived. Having regard to the nature of the averments of the petitioner and the dispute raised in this writ petition, we cannot hold that the police are in breach of their duty to the petitioner. This is a civil dispute, which has to be adjudicated by the competent civil court. The police can interfere, in the civil dispute, in favour of one side or the other, only, on the orders of the civil court. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed without prejudice to the petitioner's contentions and her right to move the civil court for appropriate reliefs. But, W.P.(C) No.34942/2008 3 this judgment will not affect the powers of the police to take action in accordance with law, if any cognizable offence is reported. (K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE) (M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE) ps