IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN TUESDAY, THE 5TH APRIL 2011 / 15TH CHAITHRA 1933 WP(C).No. 10954 of 2011(T) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- 1. KONNALLUR JAMATH MOSQUE ANANTHAVUR PO THIRUR TALUK REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESENT PRESIDENT K.K.SAITHALI ,S/O. ANI AGED 66 KUMMALIL KUTTIKKATTIL HOUSE, ANANTHAVUR PO, ANANTHAVUR VILLAGE,THIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM. 2. K.K.SAITHALI, S/O.ANI, AGED 66 KUMMALIL KUTTIKATTIL HOUSE, ANANTHAVUR PO, ANANTHAVUR VILLAGE, THIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM PRESIDENT, KONNALLUR,JAMAATH MOSQUE, ANANTHAVUR PO. BY ADV. SRI.S.VIDYASAGAR RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001. 2. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE VALANCHERRY 676 505. 3. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE KALPAKKANCHERRY POLICE STATION PUTHANATHANI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT 676 505. 4. KAYAL MADATHIL MUTHIEN, KAYAL MADATHIL HOUSE, ANANTHAVUR PO, ANANTHAVUR VILLAGE THIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM 676 505. 5. KURUVAYIL MOHAMMED ALI, KURUVAYIL HOUSE ANANTHAVUR PO, ANANTHAVUR VILLAGE THIRUR TALUK MALAPPURAM 676 505. tss W.P.(C) NO.10954/2011 6. CHOLAKKAL HANEEFA @ KUNJU, CHOLAKKAL HOUSE, ANANTHAVUR PO, ANANATHAVUR VILLAGE THIRUR TALUK MALAPPURAM 676 505. R1 TO R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.T.K.VIPINDAS. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/04/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss R.BASANT & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. *********************** W.P(C) No.10954 of 2011-T ***************************** Dated this the 5th day of April, 2011 JUDGMENT BASANT, J. The petitioners have come to this Court with this petition for issue directions to respondents 2 and 3, police officials under the 1st respondent State, to afford protection to the petitioners' life and property against illegal, contumacious, culpable and violent conduct of respondents 4 to 6. 2. The 1st petitioner is a Mosque and the 2nd petitioner is the president of the Mosque committee. According to the petitioners, the property belongs to a wakf and it has got settled boundary with the road on the western side of the property. According to them, there is an attempt by respondents 4 to 6, who represent local people, to widen the pathway by encroaching upon the property belonging to the petitioners. According to the petitioners, respondents 4 to 6 have no right whatsoever to trespass into the property and widen the pathway. The attempt is to snatch away the property W.P(C) No.10954 of 2011-T 2 of the petitioners, complain the petitioners. It is, in these circumstances, that the petitioners claim issue of directions to respondents 1 to 3 to afford police protection to them. 2. Evidently the dispute is one relating to the boundary on the western side of the petitioners' property. Though it is contended that there is a firm boundary on the western side, it is evident that there is a dispute regarding the boundary. Some people appear to assert and raise a dispute about the precise lie of the boundary. The civil court has not made any pronouncement on that dispute. We are of the opinion that, in these circumstances, it is for the petitioners to go to the civil court and seek redressal of their grievance. This Court in proceedings under Article 226 cannot obviously fix the boundary between the two properties. The police cannot be vested with jurisdiction to decide the precise lie of the boundary. We are, in these circumstances, not satisfied that any directions under Article 226 of the Constitution deserves to be issued. 3. This Writ petition is, in these circumstances, dismissed. But we make it clear that this judgment shall not in any way fetter the rights of the petitioners to approach the civil court/Tribunal and seek appropriate relief. Needless to say, no W.P(C) No.10954 of 2011-T 3 observations in this judgment will in any way affect the rights of the petitioners. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE) rtr/