IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM TUESDAY, THE 6TH SEPTEMBER 2011 / 15TH BHADRA 1933 WP(C).No. 16387 of 2011(W) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- NANAPPAN, AGED 63 YEARS, S/O.GOVINDHAN, KANNATHUSSERY, CHERAI MURI, PALLIPURAM VILLAGE, KOCHI TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.S.RAJEEV (ALUVA) RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ERNAKULAM RURAL, OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT, ALUVA-683101. 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MUNAMBAM POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-683514. 3. SUKUMARAN, S/O.GOVINDAN, KANNATHUSSERY, CHERAI MURI, CHERAI.P.O, PALLIPURAM VILLAGE, KOCHI TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-683514. 4. SAJEEVAN, AGED 48 YEARS, S/O.RAJAN, PALLAKKATTU HOUSE, CHERAI.P.O, PALLIPURAM VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683514. BY ADV.SRI.HANIL KUMAR, GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR R1 AND R2 SMT.P.K.SANTHAMMA FOR R4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/09/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 16387 of 2011(W) APPENDIX EXHIBITS FOR THE PETITIONER : Ext.P1 : COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED TO THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MUNAMBAM DATED 7.7.2010 Ext.P2 : COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED TO THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MUNAMBAM DATED 16.4.2011 EXHIBITS FOR THE RESPONDENTS : NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A.TO JUDGE ami/ PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.16387 of 2011 ------------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of September, 2011. J U D G M E N T C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. The petitioner, an Ex-service Man, aged 63 years, is seeking direction to respondents 1 and 2 to render adequate police protection for his life. It is alleged that, with respect to 10 cents of property purchased by the petitioner through Sale Deed No.800/85 of Sub Registrar Office, Parur, there exist a dispute between the 3rd respondent and the petitioner. It is alleged that the 3rd respondent, alongwith his wife, had trespassed into a portion of the said property and put up a fence enclosing that portion. The petitioner has filed a civil suit as O.S.No.486 of 1990 before the Munsiff's court, N.Parur, which was dismissed. But in appeal filed by the petitioner as A.S.No.81 of 1998, the petitioner was given liberty to file fresh suit for recovery of possession. Accordingly, another suit as O.S.No.817 of 2001 was filed before the Munsiff's court, N.Parur. It is stated that, the suit was also decreed in favour of 2 W.P.(C) No.16387 of 2011 the petitioner and the decree is under execution. 2. It is contended that, the 3rd respondent had now transferred a portion of his property to the 4th respondent and the 4th respondent is threatening the petitioner and his wife and attempting to trespass into the property owned by him in order to coerce the petitioner to withdraw from execution of the decree in question. It is stated that the petitioner had submitted Exts.P1 and Ext.P2 complaints before the 2nd respondent. But no steps was taken to avert the threat and intimidation and no action was taken against respondents 3 and 4. Hence the petitioner is filing this writ petition. 3. Smt.P.K.Santhamma learned counsel appearing for the 4th respondent submitted that there exist a civil dispute with respect to rights on the property in question and also regarding fixation of its boundary. It is submitted that, however, the 4th respondent has no intention to cause any threat or intimidation to the lives of the petitioner or his wife. Inspite of service of notice from this Court, the 3rd respondent has not chosen to enter appearance or to contest the matter. 4. Considering the facts and circumstances as well as the 3 W.P.(C) No.16387 of 2011 rival contentions raised, we notice that there exists a dispute with respect to claims and rights on the immovable property between the parties. It is also noticed that execution of a civil decree is pending before the competent court. Therefore, we are not proposing to issue any direction with respect to protection of the property owned by the petitioner, because the same may cause prejudice to the contesting parties before the civil court. 5. However, we notice that there is an undertaking from the side of the 4th respondent that he is not causing any threat or intimidation to the lives of the petitioner's family members. We heard learned Government Pleader, who appeared for respondents 1 and 2. It is stated that on receipt of Ext.P1 complaint, the 4th respondent was summoned to the police station and he was warned not to create any threat or intimidation to the lives of the petitioner and his family members. It is further stated that, after April 2011, no complaint was received from the petitioner with respect to any act of threat or violence. 6. Under the above mentioned circumstances, we are of the opinion that 2nd respondent should keep a vigil on the 4 W.P.(C) No.16387 of 2011 situation and ensure that no threat or violence is caused to the lives of the parties, arising out of the dispute pertaining to the immovable property. If intimation is received with respect to any threat or intimidation to the lives of the petitioner and his wife, the police should take appropriate steps to see that law and order situation is maintained and no breach of peace occurs. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with the above directions. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE ami/