IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI MONDAY, THE 20TH OCTOBER 2008 / 28TH ASWINA 1930 WP(C).No. 28874 of 2008(K) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ BHASKARA PILLAI, S/O.PULIYARA VEEDU VEERALAM, ATTINGAL. BY ADV. SRI.LATHEESH SEBASTIAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE ATTINGAL POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. MADAVAN PILLAI, PANAYARA VEEDU, VEERALAM, ATTINGAL. 3. LALITHA, PANAYARA VEEDU, DO.DO. 4. BINU, S/O.MADAVAN PILLAI, DO.DO. 5. BINDHU, D/O.MADAVAN NAIR, DO.DO. 6. AJITHA, D/O.MADAVAN NAIR, DO.DO. ADV. SRI.M.R.RAJESH FOR R3 TO 5 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BENJAMIN PAUL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.28874/2008 APPENDIX PETITIONERS EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DT. 18.9.08 TO THE IST RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS R3(a):- COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT CARD ISSUED BY THE MUNICIPALITY NO.5012/07 DT. 25.6.07. R3(b):- COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT CARD ISSUED BY THE MUNICIPALITY NO.7472/08 DT. 8.9.08. /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE tss K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. ----------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C)No.28874 OF 2008 ----------------------------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 20th DAY OF OCTOBER, 2008 J U D G M E N T Balakrishnan Nair, J. The petitioner submits, he is a senior citizen aged 77. He is residing with his aged wife. Respondents 2 to 6 are his neighbours. The 4th respondent is the son of the 3rd respondent. He is a real estate broker. Now, respondents 2 to 6 are demanding that the property owned by the petitioner should be sold to the said broker. Since the petitioner has failed to do that, they have made the petitioner's life miserable. They are taking advantage of the position that the petitioner and his wife alone are residing there. His children are not with him. They are not willing to sell the 10 cents of property owned by them. On 18.9.2008, respondents 2 to 6 trespassed into the property of the petitioner and plucked coconuts from the two coconut trees standing in his property. When the petitioner resisted, they threatened him and his wife showing dangerous weapons. So, he filed Exhibit P1 representation before the police. The police did not take any action. So, this Writ Petition W.P.(C)No.28874/08 -2- is filed, seeking a direction to the first respondent to provide adequate and effective police protection to the life and property of the petitioner and his wife. 2. Respondents 2 to 5 have filed a counter affidavit, denying the allegations of the petitioner. They submit, the petitioner has four children. The first son is a real estate dealer. The second son is a criminal, who was recently arrested for his smuggling activities. Now, he has gone abroad. The 3rd daughter is married and is residing about ½ a KM away from the residence of the petitioner. The 4th son is a drunkard and is a 'Peeping Tom' and is causing problems in the locality. He is staying with the petitioner, it is submitted. The respondents further submitted that the 4th respondent is working in a Comfort Station and the allegation that he is a real estate broker and he wants to get the property of the petitioner is absolutely unfounded. Two coconut trees standing in the property of the petitioner are slanting to the adjacent property of the aforementioned respondents. Dried coconuts and cadjan leaves are falling into the roof of their bathroom. So, they have filed a representation before the Attingal Municipality, as evident from Exhibit R3(a). The Municipality caused an enquiry into the matter. In the above background, the petitioner, W.P.(C)No.28874/08 -3- his wife and daughter Mallika threatened and abused them and as a retaliatory measure, Exhibit P1 complaint was filed and thereafter this Writ Petition is filed. So, the aforementioned contesting respondents pray for dismissal of the Writ Petition. 3. The petitioner has filed a reply affidavit reiterating the averments in the Writ Petition and denying the allegations of the party respondents in the counter affidavit. 4. The learned Government Pleader upon instructions submitted that the 4th respondent is working in a Comfort Station and he is not a real estate broker. The dispute between the parties is concerning two coconut trees standing in the property of the petitioner, which are slanting to the property of the party respondents. The said respondents have already moved the Municipality for cutting and removing those coconut trees. The learned Government Pleader further submitted that there is no ground existing to grant police protection to the petitioner. 5. We notice that the allegations made against the party respondents in the Writ Petition do not tally with those in Exhibit P1. The averments in Exhibit P1 show that the party respondents attempted to commit theft. When the petitioner objected to the theft W.P.(C)No.28874/08 -4- of coconuts, they trespassed into the property and threatened him. The respondents deny the said allegation. We feel that, having regard to the allegations and counter allegations of the parties, it is not proper for this Court to order under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, any protection to the petitioner as claimed by him. He can invoke the ordinary remedies available to him under the Codes of Criminal and Civil Procedure. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed, without prejudice to the contentions of the petitioner and his right to move other forums for appropriate reliefs. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE. M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE. dsn