LAWS(KER)-2011-4-145

SEETHAMMA PANICKATHIL, D/O DEVAKI AND; SHANAVAS PANICKER S , S/O SASIDHARAN Vs. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE (LAW AND ORDER) AND ORS

Decided On April 06, 2011
SEETHAMMA PANICKATHIL, D/O DEVAKI AND; SHANAVAS PANICKER S , S/O SASIDHARAN Appellant
V/S
DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE (LAW AND ORDER) AND ORS Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners, a mother and her son have come to this Court seeking issue of directions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to Respondents 1 to 5, police officials, to afford protection to them against apprehended culpable, contumacious and violent conduct on the part of Respondents 6 to 8.

(2.) Petitioners claim to be trustees in respect of a property belonging to a temple. There was a civil litigation between the trust on the one hand and the predecessor in interest of the 8th Respondent on the other. The Petitioners had succeeded in that suit. Subsequently the 8th Respondent purchased adjacent property from the judgment debtor in that suit. The 8th Respondent is now raking up new disputes. Contrary to the situations of the decree, he is attempting to construct a compound wall. The Petitioners are contemplating initiation of steps before the civil Court to prevent such illegal conduct on the part of the 8th Respondent. But in the meantime, they apprehend threat to their life from Respondents 6 to 8.

(3.) We have heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioners. We have perused records. The dispute is in substance the objection of the Petitioners against the attempt of the 8th Respondent to construct a compound wall in his property. The Petitioners attempted to obstruct the construction physically and it is then that the alleged threat to life and person arose. We have no hesitation to agree that the Petitioners must, as stated by the Counsel, approach the civil Court and seek orders. Sans the civil dispute, we perceive no threat to the life of the Petitioners. It is for the Petitioners to approach the civil Court and seek appropriate relief. We are not persuaded to agree that there is any threat to the lives of the Petitioners independent of the dispute relating to property. The dispute relating to the property as stated earlier has to be authentically resolved.