AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The 1st petitioner claims to be the owner of a waterway having an extent of 4.76 acres in Kuzhuppilly Village, by virtue of Ext.P1 title deed. The
2nd petitioner took the aforesaid water body on lease from the 1st petitioner on 10-11-2017 for installing Chinese fishing net. Ext.P2 agreement
was entered into between them. While the petitioners were engaged in fixing the wooden poles for the Chinese fishing net, the 3rd respondent, his
son and their henchmen obstructed the petitioners, destroyed the wooden poles installed and threatened them with dire consequences. The
petitioners were not able to protect their right because they were outnumbered by the 3rd respondent and his henchmen. The 1st petitioner
submitted Ext.P3 complaint before the 1st respondent seeking protection to their life and property. It is submitted that the 1st petitioner also filed
O.S.No.284/2009 before the Munsiff''s Court, North Paravur for getting the boundary of his property fixed and the 3rd respondent too filed
O.S.No.465/2007 for an injunction. The civil suits are pending consideration. The petitioners seek interference of this Court for issuing a positive
direction to respondents 1 and 2 to afford sufficient and adequate protection to the petitioners'' life and property, so that they could install the
Chinese fishing net and conduct fishing, and also to direct the 1st respondent to take appropriate action on Ext.P3 complaint filed by the 1st
petitioner.
We heard the learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 and 2 and the learned Counsel for the petitioners.
Admittedly, there is a civil dispute pending between the 1st petitioner and the 3rd respondent. Though the documents regarding the civil suit
have not been produced in the Writ Petition, from the averments of the petitioners, it is adequately clear that the 1st petitioner has approached the
civil court to get the boundary of his property fixed, while the 3rd respondent has sought a permanent injunction. In fact it was the 3rd respondent,
who was the first to approach the civil court for relief against the 1st petitioner. In view of the fact that there is dispute regarding the identity and
boundary of the property between the 1st petitioner and party respondent, and probably a scramble for title, it may not be appropriate for this
Court to direct the police authorities to interfere in the civil dispute. Hence, no positive direction is issued to respondents 1 and 2. However, in
case there is any specific complaint regarding any cognizable offence made by the petitioners, or any law and order issue, the 2nd respondent shall
take appropriate action in accordance with law, even without there bring any specific direction from this Court. With these observations, the Writ
Petition is dismissed. No costs.