IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.CHITAMBARESH MONDAY, THE 12TH DECEMBER 2011 / 21ST AGRAHAYANA 1933 WP(C).No. 29987 of 2011(W) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- DR.A.I.JOHN,EBENEZER HOUSE, KAYAMKULAM MURI, KAYAMKULAM VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.P.SREEKUMAR SRI.K.S.MANU (PUNUKKONNOOR) RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDANT OF POLICE, KAYAMKULAM. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KAYAMKULAM. 3. ABDUL KALAM AZAD,AZAD BUILDINGS, CHIRAKADAVAM MURI,KAYAMKULAM VILLAGE, KAYAMKULAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.SHYAM P.MANGUZHA BY STATE ATTORNEY SRI.P.VIJAYARAGHAVAN (R1 & R2) THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX IN W.P.(C) No.29987 of 2011 PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE DECREE IN OS NO.17/2007 EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 20/1/2010 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE IST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 21/1/2010 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 26/9/2011 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN IA 387/2008 IN OS NO.17/07 RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.S. To Judge. R.BASANT & V.CHITAMBARESH, JJ. ------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 29987 of 2011 ------------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of December, 2011 J U D G M E N T Basant, J. This petition is filed by the petitioner for issue of a direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to respondents 1 and 2, police officials, to afford protection to the petitioner for peacefully carrying out the construction work within his property. 2. According to the petitioner, third respondent is unjustifiably raising objections to such activities in his property. The petitioner concedes that there is civil dispute between him and the third respondent, in respect of a pathway. A suit has been filed and it has been decreed in favour of the petitioner. Ext.P1 is a copy of the decree in that suit. During the pendency of the suit, there was an interim order of injunction. The same was violated by the third respondent. This obliged the petitioner to move the learned Munsiff for initiating proceedings for violation of the order of injunction. That petition was disposed of by Ext.P5 order. The third respondent was ordered to be detained in civil prison for the W.P.(C) No.29987 of 2011 2 proved violation of the order of injunction. That order of injunction has now been confirmed in the suit under Ext.P1 decree. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the dispute regarding the pathway has already been resolved by the decree of the civil court and the petitioner will seek his reliefs for enforcement of the order of the civil court from the civil court. However, the petitioner laments that the excuse of the civil dispute which itself has already been resolved in favour of the petitioner is not a ground to illegally obstruct the construction activities taking place in his property and his right of possess such property. 4. The short prayer of the petitioner is that respondents 1 and 2 may be directed to afford protection to the petitioner against any culpable, violent and contumacious obstruction on the part of the third respondent against the enjoyment of his property. 5. When this writ petition came up for admission- hearing, we did not grant any interim order and ordered notice to the third respondent as we wanted to ascertain his response. Though the third respondent has been served, he has not chosen W.P.(C) No.29987 of 2011 3 to enter appearance. There is nothing available before us to indicate that the third respondent has any semblance or right over the property in respect of which police protection is now claimed. 6. The State Attorney appears for respondents 1 and 2. It is submitted that necessary steps shall be given to afford protection to the petitioner. The parties will of course have to abide by the orders of the civil court from time to time, submits the State Attorney. 7. We have taken note of the totality of the circumstances. We have also perused Exts.P1 and P5. We have heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned State Attorney on behalf of respondents 1 and 2. 8. We accept the submission of the learned State Attorney that respondents 1 and 2 shall afford adequate police protection to the petitioner, if there be any contumacious, violent or culpable conduct on the part of the third respondent to interfere with the undisputed right of possession of the petitioner over his property. The petitioner shall be at liberty to complain to respondents 1 and 2, if there be any such specific W.P.(C) No.29987 of 2011 4 instances, whereupon respondents 1 and 2 shall take necessary action, submits State Attorney. 9. We accept the submission of learned State Attorney appearing on behalf of respondents 1 and 2. 10. This writ petition is accordingly allowed and the respondents 1 and 2 are directed to afford protection to the property of the petitioner, if there be any contumacious, violent or culpable conduct on the part of the third respondent to interfere with such rights of the petitioner. Needless to say, the petitioner shall take necessary steps for enforcement of the decree/order of the civil court. No observations in this judgment shall in any way fetter the rights of either party in the proceedings before the appellate court, if and when Exts.P1 and P5 are challenged. R.BASANT, Judge. V.CHITAMBARESH, Judge. nj.