KOCHUPENNU AMBUJAKSHI Vs. VELUTHAKUNJU VASU CHANNAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Can a direction be given to the police to assist a person to enjoy possession of his property What are the circumstances in which the extraordinary remedy", under Art.226 of the Constitution can be invoked in order to protect the life and property of a person Should policemen be entrusted with a duty to decide rights of possession, easement rights and other civil rights These questions loom large in this O. P. seeking police protection. The matter has to be looked at in some detail since quite a large number of original petitions are filed seeking similar reliefs.

(2.) Petitioners together own and possess two plots of land admeasuring 1 acre and 41 5 cents lying contiguous. Respondents 1 to 4 are their neighbours. When they attempted to cut open a new pathway through the property of petitioners, a suit was filed as O. S.158/1989 before the Munsiff's Court, Haripad and obtained a decree for permanent Injunction. Even thereafter respondents 1 to 4 with the help of their associates are alleged to have made attempts to trespass into the property. Some trees are alleged to have been cut down by them and damage caused to the latrine situated in the compound. Complaints were given to respondents 5 to 7 and the Dy. Superintendent of Police, Kayamkulam. Applications were filed before the Munsiff's Court for 'taking action against defendants 1 to 4 for disobeying the decree. An advocate commissioner was appointed to assess the damages. Still respondents 1 to 4 continued their activities and demolished the fence. In spite of the complaints respondents 5 to 7 did not afford any protection to petitioners. Hence this O. P. seeking a writ of mandamus directing respondents 5 to 7 to give adequate police protection to the life and properties of petitioners and for the peaceful enjoyment of the property in accordance with the decree for permanent injunction.

(3.) In the counter affidavit filed by the 3rd respondent on behalf of respondents 1 to 4 it is stated that they had not in any manner violated the decree, nor had they trespassed into the property or laid any road or pathway across the property. They had not committed any act of waste. It is further contended that petitioners have availed of the effective alternate remedy by moving the Civil Court and that the O. P. is not sustainable.