NIZARUDHEEN Vs. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has come to this Court with this petition for issue of directions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to respondents 1 to 3 to afford protection to the petitioner against the illegal, contumacious and culpable acts of the 4th respondent, a woman.

(2.) ACCORDING to the petitioner, he has purchased 1.13 acres of land. Subsequently he purchased 3 cents of land from the 4th respondent herein. There was an agreement between him and the 4th respondent to sell to the petitioner a larger extent of property. That agreement has not worked. ACCORDING to the petitioner, the 4th respondent is unnecessarily creating disputes and raising objections and obstructions against the enjoyment of the property by the petitioner. Complaints made to the police officials, ie. respondents 1 to 3 have not evoked any useful response. It is, in these circumstances, that the petitioner has come to this Court with this petition for police protection.

(3.) WE have considered all the relevant inputs. It is transparently evident that the petitioner and the 4th respondent are owners of adjacent properties and they have civil disputes between them. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the 4th respondent, such a dispute cannot be resolved by resort to the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The parties, if they have any grievance, must certainly approach the civil court. They cannot be issued any directions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to resolve the civil disputes between them. In the result, this Writ Petition is dismissed with the above observations.