IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN MONDAY, THE 4TH JANUARY 2010 / 14TH POUSHA 1931 WP(C).No. 34920 of 2009(H) -------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------- 1. VISWAMBARAN, AGED 66 YEARS, S/O.SANKARAN, ANANDA BHAVAN, AREEPLACHY P.O., ANCHAL, PATHANAPURAM TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 2. OMANA, AGED 61 YEARS, W/O.VISWAMBARAN, ANANDA BHAVAN, AREEPLACHY P.O., ANCHAL, PATHANAPURAM TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.ANCHAL C.VIJAYAN RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF HOME AFFAIRS, GOVT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, PUNALUR, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 3. PRABHAKARAN, S/O.NEELAKANTAN, PANAVELLI VEEDU, PADOM P.O., KALANJOOR, ADOOR TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. R3 BY ADV. M/S.MOHAN JACOB GEORGE , SMT.P.V.PARVATHI, SMT.REENA THOMAS & SRI.RAMMOHAN.L. R1 & R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT M.K.PUSHPALATHA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXTS: EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE CANCELLATION DEED NO.1053/2008 DATED 3.4.2008 OF S.R.O., ANCHAL. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE CANCELLATION DEED NO.1054/2008 DATED 3.4.2008 OF S.R.O., ANCHAL.. //TRUE COPY// P.R. RAMAN & P.S. GOPINATHAN, JJ. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = == = = = = W.P.(C) NO. 34920 OF 2009 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = DATED THIS, THE 4TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2010. J U D G M E N T Raman, J. Alleging that the second respondent is harassing the petitioner at the instance of the third respondent, this writ petition is filed. 2. Ways to settle the matter through mediation failed. Admittedly, the petitioner has approached the civil court by filing O.S. 230/2008 before the Munsiff's Court, Punalur. There is a property dispute between the parties and according to the petitioner, the settlement deed executed by him has been cancelled and he asserts that he is in possession. The third respondent denied the same and asserted that he is in possession of the property. Being a disputed question of fact, this cannot be resolved in a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The second respondent shall see that law and order is maintained. Petitioner can approach the civil court for any further relief. Closed. P.R. RAMAN, JUDGE. P.S. GOPINATHAN, JUDGE. KNC/-