M G AJAYKUMAR Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The "police protection" jurisdiction exercised by this Court is one of the most abused jurisdictions. Suits which are to be filed before the concerned civil court are converted into writ petitions and filed before this Court. This case is one among such cases.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are the following: The petitioner is the owner of 12 cents and 500 sq.links of land, which he purchased in 2004. On the southern side of the property, there is a PWD Road and on the northern side, there is a canal of Muvattupuzha Valley Irrigation Project. When the third respondent tried to trespass into his property, he moved the Munsiff s Court and obtained ExtP 1 judgment, restraining the said respondent from trespassing into the aforementioned property owned by him. The petitioner submits, the third respondent, who is a lawyer, is residing on the opposite side of the road. There is no common boundary for the properties owned by the petitioner and the said respondent. The third respondent is unnecessarily troubling and harassing him. The petitioner wanted to construct a compound wall to protect his property. When he attempted to do that, the third respondent again obstructed. The petitioner orally informed the police to give protection to him, when the police did not render any assistance, this Writ Petition is filed, seeking mainly, the following relief:

(3.) The third respondent has filed a counter affidavit, disputing the submissions of the petitioner. According to him, the petitioner is trying to construct the compound wall, encroaching into the neighbouring puramboke land and also encroaching into the public pathway, going by the western side of his property. The petitioner and his wife filed OS No. 42/06 before the Munsiff s Court, Thodupuzha against one Mr. Thankachan and others, on the allegation that they are trying to trespass into their property and trying to cut open a pathway. The said Mr. Thankachan and others filed OS No. 45/06 against the petitioner, his wife and one Mr. Radhakrishna Pillai, praying to injuct them from obstructing the public pathway and also obstructing the steps leading to the public thodu flowing on the western side of the property. The third respondent submits, the plaintiffs in O.S. No. 45/2006 are the persons who are really obstructing the construction of the compound wall. Instead of impleading them, the petitioner has impleaded the third respondent to mislead this Court.