IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN THURSDAY, THE 10TH MARCH 2011 / 19TH PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 25501 of 2009(G) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ T.A.GEORGE @ SEBASTIAN, S/O. ANTONY, AGED 58 YEARS, THEKKINEDATH HOUSE, PARAVUR TALUK PARAVUR VILLAGE, NORTH PARAVUR ERNAKULAM DIST. BY ADV. SRI.V.V.ASOKAN SRI.R.JAIKRISHNA SRI.P.P.RAMACHANDRAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. THE SUPERINTEND OF POLICE, ERNAKULAM (RURAL), ALUVA ERNAKULAM DIST.PIN-683 511 2. THE SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE, NORTH PARAVUR POLICE STATION, NORTH PARAVUR POST ERNAKULAM DIST.PIN-683 513 3. ANNIE JOSEPH, W/O. JOSEPH, AGED 72 YEARS RESIDING AT THEKKENEDATH HOUSE, PARAVUR TALUK PARAVUR VILLAGE,NORTH PARAVUR, ERNAKULAM DIST.683 513 4. FRANCIS JOSEPH, S/O. JOSEPH, AGED 50 DO-DO- PIN-683 513 5. LITTO JOSEPH, D/O. JOSEPH, AGED 43 YEARS, DO-DO-PIN-683 513 6. PAULOSE JOSEPH, S/O. JOSEPH, AGED 41, DO-DO-PIN-683 513 7. JOHN JOSEPH, S/O. JOSEPH, AGED 40 YEARS DO-DO-PIN-683 513 8. LINO JOSEPH, S/O. JOSEPH, AGED 38 YEARS, DO-DO-PIN-683 513 R3 TO R8 BY ADV. SRI.M.P.KRISHNAN NAIR SRI.V.B.NARAYANAN BY ADV. SRI.K.T.PAULOSE (FOR ADV.COMMISSIONER.) SRI.HARISH GOPINATH (FOR ADV.COMMISSIONER) THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts WP(C)NO.25501/2009 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1 COPY OF THE DECREE DATED 28/7/1992 IN O.S.NO.67/1988 OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, NORTH PARAVUR. P1(A) COPY OF THE PLAN ANNEXED TO EXT.P1 DECREE. P2 COPY OF THE COMMISSION REPORT DATED 9/7/2009 IN E.P.NO.72/2008 IN O.S.NO.67/1988OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, NORTH PARAVUR. P3 COPY OF THE INJUNCTION ORDER DATED 21/8/2009 IN I.A.NO.1513 OF 2009 IN O.S.NO.380 OF 2009 OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, NORTH PARAVUR. P4 COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 27/8/2009 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P5 COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 27/8/2009SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P6 COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 27/8/2009SUBMITTED TO THE S.P.EKM (RURAL),ALUVA BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT. P7 COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 30/10/2008 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER AGAINST THE 8TH RESPONDENT TO THE SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE, NORTH PARAVUR. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: R3(A) COPY OF THE WORK MEMO SUBMITTED BY THE RESPONDENTS 3 TO 8 R3(B) COPY OF THE SETTLEMENT REGISTER ISSUED BY THE CENTRAL SURVEY OFFICE , TRIVANDRUM. R3(C) COPY OF THE SETTLEMENT REGISTER ISSUED BY THE TALUK OFFICE, NORTH PARAVUR. R3(D) COPY OF THE SKETCH PREPARED BY THE RETD. TAHSILDAR M.J.JACOB. R3(E) COPY OF THE ROUGH SKETCH SHOWING THE SHAPE OF THE PLOT. /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO.JUDGE sts WP(C)NO.25501/2009 ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER'S ANNEXURE ANNEXURE C1: COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 10/2/2011 ANNEXURE C2: COPY OF THE WORK MEMO SUBMITTED BY RESPONDENT 3 TO 8. EXHIBIT C1: COMMISSION REPORT AND SKETCH DATED 21/1/2010 /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO.JUDGE sts R. BASANT & K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 25501 of 2009-G ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of March, 2011 JUDGMENT Basant,J. This judgment must be read in continuation of the order dated 19/1/2011. An application to review the said order has already been dismissed by us by order passed today in R.P.No.94/2011. A Commissioner deputed by the Court has submitted his report. The report has been perused. In the report the Commissioner informs the Court that he identified ACB line with the inputs available and accordingly a wall has been put up along ACB line. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that inasmuch as the well ACB has already been put up with the aid of police, no further directions are necessary in this writ petition. 2. The learned counsel for respondents 3 to 8, however, contends that ACB line has not been properly identified by the W.P.(C) No. 25501 of 2009 -: 2 :- Commissioner. We have perused the report of the Commissioner. The Commissioner has identified the line ACB with reference to the judgment/orders passed in the civil suit. We do further note that it was agreed between the parties in the mediation agreement that the wall can be put up along ACB line as identified in the civil case. 3. We are not persuaded to accept the objections against identification of the line ACB by the Commissioner. We are not satisfied that the boundary put up by the Commissioner along ACB line with the aid of police requires any interference or modification. 4. This writ petition is, in these circumstances, allowed to the above extent. Sd/- R. BASANT (Judge) Sd/- K. SURENDRA MOHAN (Judge) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge