Padmanabhan Nair, J.

The main prayer in this writ petition is for a writ of mandamus directing respondents 3 and 4 to afford protection to the life and property of the petitioner as well as for construction of the compound wall of the petitioner's property.

2. The petitioner is the owner of a property comprised in Sy.No.404/4 of Maranallur Village. As early as in the year 1982, the second respondent-Panchayat passed a resolution to acquire a portion of the property of the petitioner for constructing a road. The Director of Panchayats directed the second respondent Panchayat to drop the proposed acquisition under Ext. P-1. It is averred that in order to wreck vengeance, the second respondent is attempting to take possession of a portion of the property belonging to the petitioner without resorting to the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. The petitioner had filed a suit and obtained a decree against the Panchayat. It is averred that at the instance of the Panchayat, the compound wall of the petitioner's property was demolished one week prior to the filing of the writ petition. It is also averred that the petitioner filed O.P.No.6023 of 2003 before this Court and the Original Petition was disposed of. The petitioner filed Review Petition No. 754 of 2004 for review of the judgment and this Court clarified that the parties shall await the decision of the Government in the matter. It is further averred that the petitioner has not received any notice and he was not heard. No decision was communicated to him also. The petitioner had filed representations before the Secretary, Local Administration Department and those petitions are also pending. It is further averred that the petitioner attempted to reconstruct the boundary wall demolished by the Panchayat but he was prevented by the Panchayat. Hence this Writ Petition for police protection for his life and property and also to enable the petitioner to put up the boundary wall.

3. The second respondent has filed a counter-affidavit denying the allegation that the boundary wall was demolished by the Panchayat. It was contended that the Panchayat had neither constructed nor attempted to construct the road connecting Chengalloor-Koovathalackal road with Veliyamcode Junction. A dispute exists between the petitioner and the people residing in that area regarding that road and at present there is a road having a width of 5 feet. The allegation that the Panchayat encroached the petitioner's property is denied. It is contended that his remedy is to approach the competent civil court for a decree of mandatory injunction against the persons who trespassed into the property and reduced the same into their possession. It is also admitted that the second respondent is willing to comply with any direction passed by the first respondent. It is averred that though the petitioner is fully aware of the fact that there is dispute between himself and the people in the locality, he has not impleaded any of such persons and without them on the party array, no effective relief can be granted.

4. Though the petitioner seeks protection to the life and property also the main relief that the petitioner seeks in this writ petition is for police protection to put up a boundary wall of his property. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has a right to construct or reconstruct the boundary wall of his property and neither the second respondent nor any other persons have a right to interfere with and prevent him from putting up a boundary wall to his property.

5. A writ of mandamus is a command issued by the Court commanding a public authority to perform a public duty belonging to its office. Mandamus can be granted only when a legal duty is imposed on the authority in question and the petitioner has a legal right to compel the performance of that duty. Mandamus may be issued inter alia, to compel performance of public duties which may be administrative, ministeria