K. VISWAMBHARAN Vs. DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has approached this court seeking the following relief:

(2.) BRIEFLY put, the case of the petitioner is as follows. Petitioner and his wife own and possess 4.05 Ares (10 cents) of property in Sy. No.490/7-5 and 490/7-4 of Karunagappally Village. Petitioner and his family were employed in Riyadh in Saudi Arabia. Now his wife alone is at his native place. In 2009, petitioner had constructed basement on 4 boundaries of his aforesaid property. Now the petitioner came on leave and given contract to construct compound walls on the existing foundation. Thereupon, the 3rd respondent and his associates who are anti-social elements obstructed the construction of the walls with a malicious intention to extract money from the petitioner. The 3rd respondent is the younger brother of the petitioner. He has no right over the said property. Though Ext.P2 representation was made, no protection has been granted by the respondents 1 and 2 to the petitioner for the construction of the walls. Hence this Writ Petition is filed.

(3.) WE have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. No doubt, it is true that the Suit is filed after the filing of the W.P.(C). Learned counsel for the petitioner would also point out that the Suit is filed in the year 2012 for setting aside a sale deed of 1997 which is hopelessly barred. We feel that in the facts of this case we must relegate the petitioner to approach the civil court and seek injunction against the third respondent. At the same time, we must also see that orders are passed within a specified time. Accordingly Writ Petition is disposed of as follows.