SHAJI ABRAHAM Vs. MARKOSE CHERIAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following relief: "To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate wit oder or direction to respondents 5 and 6, directing them to give adequate police protection to the life of petitioner and to his property specified in Ext.P1 suit and to maintain Ext.P2 order of injunction in its letter and spirit." Briefly put, the case of the petitioner is as follows:

(2.) THE petitioner is the title holder of 12 Ares and 12 sq.metres of land (30 cents) comprised in Resurvey No. 21/3-3 of Pampady village as per sale deed No.2497 of S.R.O.Pampady. Respondents 1 to 4 are members of a family residing very close to petitioner's property. On 10/10/2012, respondents 1 to 4 tried to encroach into petitioner's property to destroy its northern compound wall and to cut open a public road through that property. But that attempt was prevented by the timely intervention of the petitioner. Subsequently, the petitioner filed Ext.P1 suit before the Munsiff's Court, Kottayam seeking to pass a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction against respondents 1 to 4. Along with the suit, the petitioner filed an application seeking to grant a temporary injunction against respondents 1 to 4. On 20/10/2012, the Munsiff Court passed Ext.P2 order of injunction against respondents 1 to 4 until 14/11/2012, which was served on respondents 1 to 4 on 22/10/2012. After receiving Ext.P2 order, respondents 1 to 4 and their men trespassed into petitioner's property to destroy its northern compound wall in order to open a public road through the property. This was immediately reported to the 5th respondent. The 5th respondent strongly warned respondents 1 to 4 from trespassing into petitioner's property and advised them to obey Ext.P2 order. Thereafter, again on 25/10/2012 respondents 1 to 4 and their men to bring a bull-dozer into petitioner's property to cut open a public road destroying the northern compound wall. The petitioner again reported this matter to the 5th respondent by lodging Ext.P3 complaint. As a result, the 5th respondent registered crime No.789/2012 against the operator of the bull-dozer and respondents 1 to 4. Since respondents 1 to 4 deliberately defied Ext.P2 order of injunction, the petitioner filed an interlocutory application seeking to prosecute them for violating Ext.P2 injunction order. That application is pending. Since the 5th respondent registered crime against respondents 1 to 4, respondents 1 to 4 and their men are threatening the petitioner with dire consequences. It is submitted that respondents 1 to 4 may attack the petitioner with their goondas. So, the petitioner's life is in great danger.

(3.) WE heard the leaned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.