The main legal principle established is that disputes regarding property rights should be resolved by the Civil Courts, and the enforcement of decrees and orders should be carried out through the officers of the Court, with the possibility of seeking police assistance if necessary.

Can a direction be given to the police to assist a person to enjoy posses­sion of his property ? What are the circums­tances in which the extraordinary remedy under Art. 226 of the Constitution can be invoked in order to protect the life and property of a person ? Should policemen be entrusted with a duty to decide rights of possession, easement rights and other civil rights ? These questions loom large in this O.P. seeking police protection. The matter has to be looked at in some detail since quite a large number of original petitions are filed seeking similar reliefs.

2. Petitioners together own and possess two plots of land admeasuring 1 acre and 41.5 cents lying contiguous. Respondents 1 to 4 are their neighbours. When they attempted to cut open a new pathway through the property of petitioners, a suit was filed as O.S. 158/1989 before the Munsiff's Court, Haripad and obtained a decree for permanent injunction. Even thereafter respondents 1 to 4 with the help of their associates are alleged to have made attempts to trespass into the property. Some trees are alleged to have been cut down by them and damage caused to the latrine situated in the compound. Complaints were given to respondents 5 to 7 and the Dy. Superintendent of Police, Kayamkulam. Ap­plications were filed before the Munsiff's Court for taking action against defendants 1 to 4 for disobeying the decree. An advocate commissioner was appointed to assess the damages. Still respondents 1 to 4 continued their activities and demolished the fence. In spite of the complaints respondents 5 to 7 did not afford any protection to petitioners. Hence this O.P. seeking a writ of mandamus directing respondents 5 to 7 to give adequate police protection to the life and properties of petitioners and for the peaceful enjoyment of the property in accordance with the decree for permanent injunction.

3. In the counter-affidavit filed by the 3rd respondent on behalf of respondents 1 to 4 it is stated that they not in any manner violated the decree, nor had they trespassed into the property or laid any road or pathway across the property. They had not committed any act of waste. It is further contended that peti­tioners have availed of the effective alternate remedy by moving the Civil Court and that the O.P. is not sustainable.

4. Heard counsel for petitioner and re­spondents 1 to 4 and Government Pleader.

5. As early as 1979 this Court had occasion to consider the scope and ambit of a writ petition for police protection is the decision in Thomas v. Supt. of Police, 1980 KLT 151. This Court held that questions of possession, right to enjoy property or ease­ments without obstruction, nuisances and similar other matters are best adjudged by a Civil Court and that these are not matters for the police to sit in judgement upon. It is observed that resort to this Court seeking police assistance in such matters would be ill-advised. To recognise policemen as com­petent to decide such disputes would be giving them powers which are capable of abuse. It is further observed that if there is a genine dispute between the parties, that has to be resolved by the Civil Courts. This Court was of the view that though this Court is not without power to issue directions in an appropriate case of inaction by the police in such matters, the resort to this Court as a matter of course would be unjustified.

6. There observations were quoted with approval in a recent decision of this Court in Georce Mirante v. State of Kerala, 1990 (2) KLT 89. In paragraph 5 of the judgement it was held :

"In matters involving civil rights, or dis­putes regarding title and possession over property, it is not proper for this Court to interfere under Art. 226 of the Constitution with an order for police protection. Police cannot be made the adjudicators such dis­putes inter se between the parties, either regarding possession of property or regarding boundaries or regarding easements or the like. These are matters essentially