The jurisdiction of civil courts is essential for resolving disputes regarding property rights, and police protection cannot substitute thorough judicial inquiry.

J U D G M E N T

R.BASANT,J This petition is filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for a direction to respondents 1 to 3 to afford police protection to the petitioner against illegal obstruction raised by respondents 4 to 7 against the establishment of an industrial unit in property purchased by the petitioner under Exts.P1 to P3.

2. According to the petitioner, he is the owner in possession of property covered by Exts.P1 to P3. He has obtained the requisite permission/licence etc. to establish an industrial unit in that property. It is the grievance of the petitioner that respondents 4 to 7, influential local persons, are illegally obstructing the work of establishing such industrial unit. The petitioner laments that respondents 4 to 7 are demanding that work must be given in such industrial unit to persons at the dictation of respondents 4 to 7. The petitioner is unwilling to do the same and hence they are raising illegal obstruction.

W.P.C.No.19296 of 2011 2

3. It is not disputed that raising identical allegations, the petitioner has already gone to the civil court. The civil court is already ceased of the matter. A Commissioner has already been deputed by the Civil court. In the civil court, definite assertion of the petitioner is that interference by respondents 4 to 7 is in respect of property covered by Ext.P2 alone. After filing the suit, the petitioner realised that he must seek relief in respect of Exts.P1 to P3 property and it is, in these circumstances, the petitioner has allegedly come to this Court seeking directions.

4. Respondents 4 to 7 have entered appearance. 6th respondent has filed a separate counter affidavit whereas respondents 4 to 5 and 7 have together filed counter affidavits. They have a different version to advance. According to them, the real dispute is not what it is purported to be in this writ petition. It is their contention that they have never demanded any work for themselves or others in the industrial unit proposed to be established. Such allegations are being made falsely and maliciously to side track the real issue.

5. According to respondents 4 to 7, this petition has been filed arraying them as parties. So was the situation when W.P.C.No.19296 of 2011 3 Ext.R4(a) suit was filed. The real dispute is between the Kshethra Samrakshana Samithi of Malleswara temple, a temple situated in a property in the locality. According to respondents 4 to 7, on the complaint of the President of the Kshethra Samrakshana Samithi Ext.R6(b) crime was registered as early as on 07/06/2011. In that, it is very specifically complained that the petitioner is attempting to destroy the idols and interfere with the peaceful and orderly functioning of the temple. That crime was registered; but the police, succumbing to the influence of the petitioner, is not taking any proper action.

6. This petition was filed as late as on 14/07/2011. But the petitioner has significantly suppressed all information against that crime and the objections raised by the Kshethra Samrakshana Samithi and the members of the local public against the attitude of the petitioner of interfering with the temple and its activities under the guise of establishing the industrial unit in Exts.P1 to P3 property. The petitioner had approached the civil court; but realising that no effective interim orders have been obtained from the civil court, the petitioner is now attempting to steal a march over respondents 4 to 7 as also W.P.C.No.19296 of 2011 4 members and the activists of the Kshethra Samrakshana Samithi by seeking police protection in this petition. The President of the Kshethra Samrakshana Samithi has not been arrayed as a party in this petition or in the suit filed by the petitioner. The intention is obvious. The petitioner is trying to run away with an order of police protection without really bringing before Court all the relevant issues. Inasmuch as it is not revealed before the Civil court that there exists a di