IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM FRIDAY, THE 2ND SEPTEMBER 2011 / 11TH BHADRA 1933 WP(C).No. 23303 of 2011(K) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- DENNIS, S/O.BERNAD, AGED 59 YEARS, DALVIN NIVAS, KUMBALAM, MULAVANA, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.S.MANU (PUNUKKONNOOR), SRI.P.SREEKUMAR. RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. CITY POLICE COMMISSIONER, (SUPERINTEND OF POLICE), KOLLAM-676 100. 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KUNDARA POLICE STATION, KUNDARA, KOLLAM-676 178. 3. JOSE MON, ASWATHI BHAVAN, KUMBALAM, MULAVANA, KOLLAM DISTRICT-676 176. 4. SAJU YASUDASAN, KANJIRAMVILA PUTHEN VEEDU, KUMBALAM, MULAVANA, KOLLAM DISTRICT-676 176. 5. YASUDASAN, OF DO. DO. 6. BIJU, CHERIYA MUKALUVILA VEEDU, KUMBALAM, MULAVANA, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 7. GIBI, JEEJA BHAVAN, KANJIRAMVILA PUTHEN VEEDU, KUMBALAM, MULAVANA, KOLLAM DISTRICT-676 176. R1 & R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT.C.M. CHARISMA. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/09/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs WP(C).No. 23303 of 2011(K) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE SALE DEED. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE DECREE. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE rs PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM,JJ. ------------------------------- WP(C).NO. 23303 of 2011 --------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of September, 2011 JUDGMENT Pius C.Kuriakose ,J. Petitioner is seeking direction against respondents 1 and 2 to afford adequate and effective police protection to the life and property of the petitioner and his family members. Complaint of the petitioner is that respondents 3 to 6 and their men had cut open a path way upto the eastern compound wall of the petitioner's property, with the aid of the 2nd respondent. It is stated that respondents 3 to 6 and their men had declared that they will cut open the pathway through the property of the petitioner by demolishing the compound wall. With respect to the threat and attempts made by respondents 3 to 6 the petitioner had filed Ext.P3 complaint before the 1st respondent. Alleging that the 1st respondent is not taking any action, this writ petition is filed. When the matter came up for admission on 26.8.2011 notice by special messenger was ordered against respondents 3 to 6. The learned Government Pleader who WP(C) .23303/2011 2 appeared on behalf of respondents 1 and 2 was directed to get instructions from the 1st respondent as to what action if any has been taken on the basis of Ext.P3. 2. Today when the matter is taken up for consideration it is noticed that inspite of ordering notice the petitioner has not taken steps to serve notice to respondents 3 to 6. The learned Government Pleader on the basis of the instructions received from the 2nd respondent submitted that there exists a dispute with respect to the pathway passing through the eastern side of the petitioner's property. It is further stated that the dispute is a civil nature and the party respondents conceded before the 2nd respondent that they have no intention to cut open the pathway through the petitioner's property. However we notice that the petitioner has conceded that a suit filed as OS.No.1270/98 before the Additional Munsiff's Court, Kollam for realisation of the value of trees and cost of construction of the compound wall which was allegedly destroyed and to restrain the defendants from widening the pathway by encroaching the petitioner's property has been decreed in favour of him. It is further stated that the appeal filed by the defendants also stands dismissed. WP(C) .23303/2011 3 3. Considering the facts and circumstance as stated above, we are of the opinion that the dispute between the properties is purely that of civil nature. However we note that the party respondents conceded before the 2nd respondent that they have no intention to cut open a path way through the petitioner's property. We direct the 2nd respondent to keep vigil on the situation and to ensure that no breach of peace or law and order situation is created out of the dispute between the parties. The petitioner will be at liberty to seek appropriate remedy by approaching competent civil court. Needless to say that if there is any threat to the petitioner or his family members, the 2nd respondent should take effective steps to avert such situation and to afford protection. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE,JUDGE C.K.ABDUL REHIM,JUDGE pmn/ WP(C) .23303/2011 4