IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS TUESDAY, THE 9TH MARCH 2010 / 18TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 66 of 2010(G) ----------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------- 1. V.M.GEORGE, S/O.MATHEW, AGED 72 YEARS, RESIDING AT VALIYAPARAMBIL HOUSE, INFANT JESUS ROAD, PACHALAM P.O., ENRAKULAM. 2. V.G.RAPHEL, S/O.V.M.GEORGE, AGED 40 YEARS, RESIDING AT VALIYAPARAMBIL HOUSE INFANT JESUS ROAD, PACHALAM P.O., ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.T.H.ABDUL AZEEZ SRI.RAJU VADAKKEKARA RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, JANAMYTHRI POLICE STATION, PALARIVATTOM P.O., ERNAKULAM. 3. SUDHEER, S/O.(NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS), AGED 40 YEARS, RESIDING AT ULLADATHARA HOUSE, CHURCH ROAD, PALARIVATTOM, LOCAL SECRETARY, COMMUNIST PARTY OF INDIA, PALARIVATTOM LOCAL COMMITTEE, ERNAKULAM. 4. VENU, S/O. (NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS), AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, RESIDING AT KUTTOPALLY HOUSE, EROOR VASUDEV ROAD, PALARIVATTOM P.O., ERNAKULAM. ADV. SRI.BABU CHERUKARA FOR R3 & R4 SRI.THULASEEDHARAN PILLAI FOR R3 & R4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 66 of 2010(G) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 ; TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED DATED 17.9.2001 EXT.P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 3.1.2010 BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT, FROM THE PETITIONERS. EXT.P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DT.18.1.2010 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHBITS: EXT.R3(a) : TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C) NO. 8938 / 2008 DT.17.3.2008 OF THIS HONBLE COURT. EXT.R3(b) : TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE SKETCH MARKING ENCROACHMENT. EXR.R3(c) : TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE ASST. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER EDAPPALLY REGIONAL OFFICE, COCHIN CORPORATION, DATED 8.1.2010. K.M. JOSEPH & M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS JJ., - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P. (C) No. 66 of 2010 G - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 9th day of March, 2010 JUDGMENT Joseph J., The petitioner has approached this court seeking the following prayer: to issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, or order commanding the respondents 1 and 2 to provide adequate police protection to the life and property of the petitioners. 2. Briefly put the case of the petitioners is as follows. The first petitioner is a senior citizen. The second petitioner is his son and is residing with his father. The first petitioner is the absolute owner of 2.400 cents of land and a building No. C.C. 35 W.P. (C) No. 66 of 2010 2 of 993 therein, in Survey No. 19 of 2004 in Poonithura Village, in Kanayannur Taluk in Ernakulam District. The second petitioner is conducting a furniture shop in the above mentioned building. The first petitioner purchased the said building with land as per Sale Deed No. 3495 of 2001. 3. Respondent Nos. 3 and 4, who are the local political leaders of the Communist Party of India, with the help of anti-social elements and goondas taking advantage of the absence of the petitioners, on 3.1.2010 trespassed into the property and demolished the boundary wall. The petitioners submitted Ext.P2 complaint and a temporary boundary wall is constructed by the petitioners for identifying their property. It is submitted that due to the above act, respondents 3 and 4 were greatly provoked and creating all sort of troubles and miseries to the petitioners. 4. A counter affidavit was filed by respondents 3 and 4. It is W.P. (C) No. 66 of 2010 3 submitted that the petitioners are the encroachers to the puramboke property in Survey No. 18 of 2 of Poonithura village and judgment in W.P.(C) No. 8938 of 2008 is produced as Ext.R3(a) in a writ petition filed by two persons. As per the said judgment the Secretary of 4th respondent Corporation was directed to take up Ext.P2 immediately to conduct a local inspection, to determine whether the allegations are correct, and to identify the above encroachers. Further direction was given to abate the encroachments in the Corporation street. Ext.R3(b) is the sketch marking the encroachment. Ext.R3(c) is the notice issued by the Asst. Executive Engineer, Edappally Regional Office, Cochin Corporation to the petitioner. It is stated that the respondents are not creating any threat to the life of the petitioners. 5. We heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for respondents 3 and 4 as also the learned Government W.P. (C) No. 66 of 2010 4 Pleader. They reiterate their contentions. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that against Ext.R3(c), the petitioners instituted O.S. No. 62 of 2010 and obtained injunction on 16.1.2010. There is no dispute as to the possession as between the petitioners and respondents 3 and 4 as admittedly going by the statements of the learned counsel for the respondents 3 and 4, they are residing at some distance from the property covered by Ext.P1. 7. A notice has been issued by the Corporation to the petitioners. The learned Munsiff is seized of the matter in the suit filed by the first petitioner. Learned counsel for party respondents would submit that they have no personal interest in the matter and they will not create any trouble in connection with this matter. We record the said submission. 8. We further direct that in case there is any threat to the life W.P. (C) No. 66 of 2010 5 of the petitioners from respondents 3 and 4, the second respondent will provide adequate protection to the life of the petitioners. We also make it clear that in connection with the question relating to the alleged encroachments by the petitioners, the matter has to be gone into in the appropriate forum. K.M. JOSEPH, JUDGE M. L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JUDGE. dl/