Ramachandra Menon,J
The petitioner has approached this Court with the following prayers:-
i) Issue a writ of mandamus or such writ, order or direction commanding the respondents 1 and 2 to provide effective and adequate police protection to the petitioner and his labourers to carry out the rubber plantation work without any hindrances/obstructions from respondent No.3 & 4 and their men.
ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or such writ, order or direction commanding the respondents 1 and 2 to provide effective and adequate police protection to the property and rubber plantation of petitioner from causing any damages by the respondents No.3 & 4 and their supporters.
iii) Grant such other writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”
2. The case of the petitioner is that, there was some dispute in connection with the boundary of the property belonging to the petitioner and the 3rd respondent herein and some others, nearly 2½ decades back. The petitioner approached Munsiff’s Court-II, Kozhikode by filing O.S.No.230/1991 seeking for a permanent prohibitory injunction which led to Ext.P2 judgment whereby the relief sought for was granted and defendants were restrained from trespassing upon the plaint schedule property or demolishing the western boundary of it or causing waste in the said property and also from anyway interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the B Schedule Property by the plaintiff (who is none other than the petitioner herein).
3. It is contended by the petitioner that, there was no untoward incident or any illegal action from the part of defendants for quite long and on a fine morning, i.e., on 20th March 2014, when the petitioner went to the property in connection with the agricultural operations, quite a lot of persons were standing in front of the property, led by respondents 3 and 4, forcefully preventing the workers of the petitioner from entering into the property. It is stated that the petitioner and workers were threatened of dire consequences, if the petitioner entered into the property and took the usufructs from there. This made the petitioner to file Ext.P1 complaint before the police seeking for protection to give effect to Ext.P2 judgment, which unfortunately has not been properly attended to and hence the writ petition.
4. The learned State Attorney submits on behalf of respondents 1 and 2 that, the said respondents have not received any complaint, copy of which has been produced as Ext.P1. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the same was sent by registered post. It is however conceded in the writ petition that, there was no trouble whatsoever from the part of respondents 3 and 4 for the past 2 ½ decades. What made the respondents 3 and 4 to turn against the petitioner is not known and the pleadings are quite insufficient to arrive at any inference. That apart, the learned State Attorney submits that, there is no threat to the law and order situation in the area and that the matter is purely a 'civil dispute' if any.
In such circumstances, if the petitioner is aggrieved of any act of encroachment from the part of anybody, it is always open to the petitioner to approach the competent civil court having jurisdiction over the area for redressal of grievances. If there is any threat to the law and order situation, it shall be brought to the notice of the police, who shall take appropriate steps so as to meet the need of the hour. Interference is declined and the writ petition is dismissed.
MANJULA CHELLUR, CHIEF JUSTICE
P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON,
JUDGE.
sj20/06