IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 28937 of 2009(J)
1. RETHANAKUMARI @ THANKAMANI,AGED 42 YRS,
... Petitioner
2. RETHNAMANI @ AMMINI AMMA,D/O.SANKARA
3. THANKAPPAN PILLAI,S/O.MADHAVAN PILLAI,
Vs
1. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KALLAMBALAM
... Respondent
2. CHANDRA BABU,KANJIRAMVILA VEEDU,
3. SHYLAJA,W/O.CHANDRA BABU,KANJIRAMVILA
4. MURALEEDHARAN,SHYNI BHAVAN,THOPPIL,
5. ANIL KUMAR,PALAVILA,THOPPIL,MUNGODU.PO,
6. BIJU,.S.SADANAM,THOPPIL,MUNGODU.PO,
7. BABU,RAMYA NIVAS,THOPPIL,MUNGODU.P.O,
For Petitioner :SRI.T.M.ABDUL LATHEEF
For Respondent :SRI.S.RAJEEV
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.M.JOSEPH
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS
Dated :25/01/2010
O R D E R
K.M.JOSEPH & M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS JJ.,
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
W.P.(C). NO: 28937 OF2009
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 25 Day of January, 2010.
th
JUDGMENT
K.M. Joseph J.,
The prayer in the writ petition are as follows:
(i) To call for the records relating to Exts.P-1 to P-6 and
to issue a writ of mandamus commanding the first respondent to
give adequate Police protection to the petitioners from being
subjected to any kind of criminal action including intimidation,
assault and causing injury, etc. by the Respondents 2 to 7 and
their men for not accepting the demand for cutting open a road
through Petitioners property and also protection tot he life of the
petitioners for enjoying their property covered by Exts.P-1 to P-
4, and also to the property of the petitioners from being used for
widening the pathway.
W.P.(C). No: 28937 OF 2009
:2:
(ii) Any other appropriate, writ, order or direction also
may be granted to meet out justice under the circumstances of the
above case.
2. Briefly put case of petitioner is as follows:
The petitioners 1 and 2 are sisters and 3rd petitioner is the
brother in law of the Petitioners 1 and 2. The petitioners 1 and 2
and their sister Rethnamma obtained some items of property. It is
located in 3 blocks. Ext.P1 is rough sketch of the property.
Exts.P2, P3 and P4 produced are tax receipts. Respondent 2 and 3
are stated to be having properties having an extent of 4 cents and
350 sq. links in which they are residing. It is the case of the
petitioners that there is a pathway having a width of 2 links starting
from Nellikode Thoppil Road, which passes through the eastern
boundary of Gopala Pillai and thereafter it passes through the
properties of petitioners 1 and 2 and ends with the property of the
3rd petitioner. Recently some local political leaders, who were set
up by the respondents 2 and 3, cut a motorable road through the
petitioner’s property and they have also arranged some anti socials,
W.P.(C). No: 28937 OF 2009
:3:
which included Respondents 4 and 7. The caveat petition filed
before the Munsiff’s Court, Varkala was produced as Exhibit P5.
3. The petitioner filed Ext.P6 petition before the 1st
respondent for police protection. The 2nd and 3rd respondents are
forcing the petitioners to give agreement agreeing to cut open the
road through their property. They are not giving any heed to the
said petition. It is stated that they will see that even under
bloodshed they will desire the satisfaction. Due to fear of life, they
are unable to go to their property. The 2nd and 7th respondents know
that the petitioners are residing 3kms away from the property. They
are auto rickshaw drivers and also involved in various criminal
cases and vandalism.
4. A counter affidavit was filed by the 2nd respondent on
behalf of respondents nos. 3, 4, 5 and 7 also. It is stated inter-alia
as follows: Ext.P1 location sketch is not correct and it was drawn
according to their own wish. It is stated there that he had purchased
4 < cents of property under sale deed No.1079/09/1 dated
22.9.2009. It is stated that there is a pathway leading to his
W.P.(C). No: 28937 OF 2009
:4:
property in existence for more than 100 years as per revenue
records. The petitioners and their henchmen attempted to close the
pathway by constructing walls in the pathway and the general
public filed a mass petition before the Secretary of Panchayath
(Ext.R2(a)). The Panchayath Secretary had visited the property and
the petitioners along with their henchmen attacked and obstructed
the Secretary. Ext.R2(b) is the complaint letter issued from the
Secretary to the first respondent, Sub Inspector of Police. It is
further stated that after writ petition is filed, the petitioner have
wrongfully restrained his children and wife and abused. They
threatened that brother in law of 2nd respondent will be killed.
Ext.R2(c) is the complaint submitted to the 1st respondent.
5. We heard the learned counsel for the petitioners.
6. This is a case where the petitioners have to approach
appropriate civil court, if they have any grievance. They have also
a right to approach the authorities to take action on their
complaints.
7. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that they have
W.P.(C). No: 28937 OF 2009
:5:
not threatened the petitioners. We notice that in the writ petition
the prayer is to grant relief for enjoyment of the property. When
these questions are already in dispute and it cannot be resolved by
this court, we fail to see how the petitioner can become entitled to
police protection as sought for.
The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
K.M.JOSEPH, JUDGE
M. L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JUDGE.
dl/