ANIL K.NARENDRAN, J.
According to the petitioners, the first petitioner is having 1.44 acres of agricultural property in Sy.Nos.354/11, 354/6 and 354/3 of Pudupariyaram-I Village in Palakkad Taluk and the second petitioner is having 5.72 acres in Sy.Nos.357/1, 3, 2, 348/1, 2, 347/1, 2, 346/2 of Pudupariyaram-I Village in Palakkad District. They have planted the property with coconut, rubber and arecanut. According to them, agricultural produce from the property have to be loaded into motor vehicles for taking them out. Manure and agricultural inputs have to be unloaded at the property. These loading and unloading activities are only incidental to the agricultural activity carried out in their property. The grievance of the petitioner is that, the head load works of respondents 3 to 5 unions are causing obstruction to carry out agricultural activities in their property. They have submitted Exts.P1 and P2 complaints before the 1st respondent. But no effective steps have been taken by the police. In such circumstances, the petitioner has approached this Court in this Writ Petition seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the 1st respondent to afford adequate and meaningful protection to the petitioners for carrying out agricultural activities in their property. The 6th respondent in this Writ Petition is the Kerala Head Load Workers Welfare Fund Board, represented by its District Officer, Palakkad.
2. The learned Government Pleader on instructions submitted that there is some labour dispute between the petitioners and respondents 2 to 5. The learned Standing Counsel for the 6th respondent submitted that the ares is not a scheme covered area and hence no head load worker can claim work as a matter of right. Though, notice by special messenger was ordered to respondents 2 to 5 there is no appearance for them.
3. We heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader appearing for the first respondent and the learned Standing Counsel for the 6th respondent.
Admittedly the area is not a scheme covered area. The activities referred to in the Writ Petition are only incidental to the agricultural operation carried out by the petitioners in their property. Therefore, the members of respondents 2 to 5 unions have absolutely no right to insist that they should be engaged in carrying out the loading and unloading activity inside the petitioners' property. In such circumstances, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing that, if there is any threat or obstruction being caused by members of respondents 2 to 5 unions, the first respondent shall afford adequate and meaningful protection to the petitioners for carrying out the agricultural operations in their property.
A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, JUDGE ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JUDGE skj