SAINUDEEN Vs. GOPALKRISHNAN NAIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed seeking police protection.

(2.) Briefly put, the case of the petitioner is as follows. Petitioner is the absolute owner in possession of 75 cents of land covered by Ext.P1 sale deed. Petitioner purchased the property from the 4th respondent. It is stated that petitioner is an innocent purchaser for valuable consideration. The property is a rubber plantation. It is alleged that respondents 1 to 3 are restraining the petitioner from taking the usufructs of the property. There is allegation that on 19.10.2010 and 24.10.2010 respondents 1 and 3 came to the property of the petitioner and obstructed the petitioner and his employees from doing any job in the above property and threatened the petitioner and her tapping employee that if they continue to do the tapping their hands will be cut down by them. Petitioner filed complaint. It is also stated that the Ist respondent filed a suit against the 4th respondent claiming title of the property and the suit is finally dismissed and that the Ist respondent has not filed any appeal against the dismissal of the suit.

(3.) In the nature of the allegations and the nature of the prayer, we would think that it is not a fit case for us to exercise the extraordinary jurisdiction. Essentially the claim of the petitioner as seen from the prayer is to grant protection for enjoyment of the property covered by Ext.P1. We do not see why the petitioner cannot approach the competent civil Court against the named respondents against whom the allegations are made. Without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to approach the competent civil Court against the parties, the writ petition is disposed of. We, however, make it clear that, if the petitioner has complained or complains of commission of any cognizable offence, action in accordance with law shall be taken by the official respondents before whom the complaint is lodged.