P.L.FRIXES Vs. FR. JOSE THANNIPPARA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONERS have approached this Court seeking the following relief:

(2.) BRIEFLY put, the case of the petitioners is as follows: Petitioners are owners in possession of 2 Acres and 3 cents of property at Kunjithanni Village, Idukki. As per Ext.P2, petitioners have got a motorable road from the Panchayat road with a width of 12 feet at the entrance and a width of 8 feet at top. The petitioners submitted an application before the Revenue Divisional Officer to allot some extent of puramboke land at the top end of the pathway and then the 1st respondent cut and removed the gravel from the sand bank. The petitioners then filed W.P.(C) No.16171 of 2012 before this Court for a direction to the Revenue Divisional Officer to dispose of the application and for a direction to the 1st respondent not to remove more sand from the side of the road leading to the petitioners' property. The 1st respondent undertook not to remove any gravel and this Court disposed of the writ petition directing the Revenue Divisional Officer to take a decision in the matter. The Revenue Divisional Officer inspected the property, heard both sides and passed an order directing the 1st respondent to construct a wall leaning 45% or to construct a protection wall to the petitioners' property and to remove the fence illegally put up by the 1st respondent. Meanwhile before the inspection of the Revenue Divisional Officer and after inspection, the 1st respondent removed the complete gravel from the boundary of the road of the petitioners making the way most dangerous and put a fence illegally on the western side of the road. On 11.11.2012, while the 1st petitioner was doing agricultural works in the property, the 1st respondent created an unwanted scene therein and rang the church bell continuously causing a gathering of believers. The 1st petitioner called the 6th respondent who took him to the police station to avoid more unpleasant scenes. Under these situations the petitioners filed W.P.(C) No.27946 of 2012 before this Court for a direction to the Tahsildar to measure the property and to give a sketch. This Court was pleased to issue a direction. The Tahsildar after giving notice to all measured the property on 22.03.2013 and issued a certified copy of the sketch to the petitioners which shows the encroachment made by the 1st respondent. On 03.04.2013, while the 1st petitioner started the agricultural work along with his labourers from Ernakulam, respondents 1 to 4 trespassed into the property and commanded the petitioner and his workers to stop the work demanding Rs.93,000/- towards expenses of litigation. Fearing loss of life the petitioners stopped the work but around 3 p.m., the 5th respondent, sister of Christudasi Convent, along with respondents 1 to 4 and some others again trespassed into the property and made a pathway on the northern boundary of the petitioners' property by putting survey stones. The 1st petitioner returned with his labourers and filed Ext.P13 petition before the 6th respondent Sub Inspector and Ext.P14 before the 7th respondent Superintendent of Police, Idukki to give adequate police protection to his life and property and the lives of his workers. But nothing is done by respondents 6 and 7 so far. 1st respondent threatens that he will block the entrance road of the petitioners if money is not paid. The petitioners submit that there is no boundary dispute between them and respondents 1 and 5. The attack from their side is only to grab money from the petitioners who are not locals. The petitioners are to start with their agricultural work immediately as the season is coming. Hence this writ petition for a direction to respondents 6 and 7 to give adequate protection to the life and property of the petitioners and the lives of their labourers and a direction to make arrangements for free ingress and egress to their property shown in Ext.P11 without any hindrance from respondents 1 to 5.

(3.) ADMITTEDLY a civil suit is pending as O.S.No.150 of 2012 before the Sub Court, Thodupuzha. We think that in the nature of the case it is only appropriate that the petitioners are relegated to pursue the remedies before the civil court. Without prejudice to all the remedies open to the petitioners the writ petition is disposed of.