THOMAS ABRAHAM Vs. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners have approached this Court seeking police protection against the alleged trespass and highhandedness of respondents 4 to 8. The 1st petitioner owns some land, which he had allegedly purchased as per Ext.P1 document. Mutation was effected as per Ext.P2. 1st petitioner's nephew, and son of the 2nd petitioner, Prince Thomas, purchased adjoining land as per Ext.P3, for which he has paid land tax as per Ext.P4. The 2nd petitioner is the power of attorney of his son as per Ext.P5. The petitioners have planted rubber trees in their property and they are solely depending on the income derived from that property for their livelihood. The property has well defined boundary in all the four sides with a gate installed for the ingress and egress. During 2006, the party respondents attempted to encroach into 1st petitioner's property, destructed the boundary wall and committed waste. The 1st petitioner filed O.S.No.367/2006 for a perpetual injunction and obtained a favourable decree, which is Ext.P6. The decree has attained finality. The party respondents are indulging in several illegal and unlawful activities. They abused the petitioners and the members of their family. The gate installed in the property was destructed. Father of 1st petitioner made a complaint before the police and a case was registered as C.C.No.2/2016 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Hosdurg. 1st petitioner's father had also approached this Court with a Writ Petition seeking police protection and the same was closed. The party respondents trespassed into the property of the petitioners during 2017 and started tapping the rubber trees illegally. When the 1st petitioner and his aged father attempted to prevent them, the party respondents intimidated them with deadly weapons. The petitioners approached the 3rd respondent with complaints as evidenced by Exts.P7 to P10. It is understood that the 4th respondent is carrying a gun with him and is posing threat to the life of the petitioners and the members of their family. The police authorities are not taking any action and the party respondents are continuing with their illegal activities and hence the petitioners were left with no other option than to approach this Court and seek interference of this Court by issuance of a writ of mandamus directing respondents 1 to 3 to afford adequate police protection to the petitioners and the members of their family and to enable them to tap the rubber trees standing in their property.

(2.) The Senior Government Pleader appeared for respondents 1 to 3. The learned Counsel for the petitioners and the Government Pleader were heard. Documents perused.

(3.) The 1st petitioner had already approached the civil court as early as in 2006 and obtained a favourable decree of injunction against respondents 5 and 6, which has now attained finality and is binding on the party respondents. In case there is any violation of the decree of the civil court, the first thing that the 1st petitioner ought to have done is to approach the civil court, seeking remedy for violation of injunction. Admittedly no such action has been taken for reasons best known to the 1st petitioner. It is also pertinent that the 2nd petitioner, acting for his son; concerned with another property, not covered by Ext.P6 decree, has joined the 1st petitioner seeking protection against the other property also.