KALLAI ABU Vs. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MALAPPURAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Briefly put, the averments in the writ petition are as follows :-

(2.) Now the petitioner wanted to construct a compound wall and to erect a gate in item No.3 of the plaint schedule property. Coming to know of this, respondents 4 to 9 preferred a complaint before the 1st respondent, Sub Inspector of Police, alleging that the petitioner along with his wife and son trespassed into the property of respondents 4 to 9. The petitioner was summoned to the police station by the 1st respondent. The petitioner apprised true facts before the 1st respondent. The petitioner filed a complaint against respondents 4 to 9, sought for police protection in view of the Judgment of this Court, dismissing the respondents' claim over the property and accepting the petitioner's right over the property. Respondents 1 to 3 were bound to afford police protection to carry out works in the property in view of Exts.P3 and P5 Judgments. But they did not give protection so far for the construction in the petitioner's property and the threat is still continuing. Therefore the petitioner prayed for order of this Court, directing respondents 1 to 3 to afford adequate police protection to carry out construction works in item No.3 property scheduled to Ext.P2 decree. Respondents 4 to 9 filed a counter affidavit, inter alia contending that the petitioner herein is trying to encroach into respondents' property, which lies adjacent to petitioner's property and constructed a wall which is being objected to by respondents 4 to 9. Even though the 2nd appeal was dismissed, respondents 4 to 9 preferred a leave before the Honourable Supreme Court of India which is to be taken up for admission. The proper remedy for the petitioner is to file a suit for demarcation of boundaries and after that he can construct a compound wall. The police authorities cannot adjudicate the dispute as regards the boundary of the property and the remedy of the petitioner is to approach the Civil Court. The petitioner seeks to circumvent due legal process by approaching this Court, seeking protection from the police for constructing a wall which if allowed, would encroach into their property.

(3.) We heard Sri.Rajesh.R.Kormath, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Vinod Vallikappan, the learned counsel for respondents 4 to 9, and the learned Government Pleader.