IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI TUESDAY, THE 14TH DECEMBER 2010 / 23RD AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 34813 of 2010(B) --------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- KURICHIPADAM KRISHI SAMAJAM, ELANKUNNAPPUZHA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, P.O.MALIPPURAM, KOCHI-682 503. BY ADVS. SRI.P.B.KRISHNAN SMT.GEETHA P.MENON SRI.P.M.NEELAKANDAN RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, NJARACKAL POLICE STATION, NJARACKAL. 2. THENASSERY RAJU @ RAJAN, S/O.XAVIER (CHAVARA), KARTHEDAM, MALIPPURAM P.O., PIN-682503. 3. JOSSY GOMAS, S/O.JOSEPH GOMAS, ELANJATTIL, PUKKAD, KARTHEDAM, MALIPPURAM-682503. 4. ANDREWS GOMAS, S/O.-DO- IN -DO-. 5. VINU, S/O.ADIMAKKANDATHIL MAYAPPAN, ADIMAKKANDATH HOUSE, KARTHEDAM, MALIPPURAM-682503. 6. KALADHARAN, S/O.KARUPPAN, CHOOTHAMPARAMBIL HOUSE, KARTHEDAM, MALIPPURAM-682503. 7. P.M.AMBI, S/O.ERETHARA KUNJAN, ERETHARA HOUSE, KARTHEDAM, MALIPPURAM-682503. 8. SAMSON, S/O.IGNATIOUS, THANNEKKATTU HOUSE, PUKKAD, MALIPPURAM-682503. R1 BY GOVT.PLEADER SMT.S.M.CHARISHMA R2-R8 BY ADV. SRI.T.N.SURESH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs WP(C).No. 34813/2010(B) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN O.S.NO.135/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, KOCHI. P2: COPY OF THE DECREE IN O.S.NO.135/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, KOCHI. P3: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE RESPONDENT NO.1. P3(a):COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT RECEIPT ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.1 FOR HAVING RECEIVED EXT.P3. P4: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION MADE BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE RESPONDENT NO.1 P4(a):COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT RECEIPT ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.1 FOR HAVING RECEIVED EXT.P4. P5: COPY OF THE TOPOGRAPHY OF THE LOCALITY IN WHICH THE PADASEKHARAM IS MARKED OUT. P6: COPY OF THE ENLARGED SKETCH OF THE PADASEKHARAM. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE svs K.M.JOSEPH & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. * * * * * * * * * * * * * W.P.C.No.34813 of 2010 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 14th day of December 2010 J U D G M E N T K.M.JOSEPH,J The petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following reliefs: i) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate direction, directing Respondent No.1 to take appropriate measures for preventing Respondents 2, 3 and others from committing criminal trespass over the 62.35 acres of padasekharam jointly owned and jointly possessed by the members of the petitioner in the survey numbers tabulated in paragraph 1 hereinabove situated in Elamkunnapuzha village and from committing theft of fish, prawns etc. from the above said padasekharam; ii) issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction directing Respondent No.1 to provide adequate assistance of police whenever it is apprehended that Respondent No.2 onwards are committing or attempting to commit any criminal trespass over the Petitioner's padasekharam or committing or attempting to commit theft therefrom; iii) issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, W.P.C.No.34813 of 2010 2 order or direction directing Respondent No.1 to provide effective and necessary police protection for the petitioner to conduct agriculture, prawn cultivation and related activities without any let or hindrance by Respondents 2, 3 and others; 2. Briefly put, the case of the petitioner is as follows: 3. The petitioner is a Krishi Samajam consisting of 110 members together hold an extent of 62.35 acres of paddy field in Elankunnapuzha village. There is a dispute between the Krishi Samajam and Elankunnapuzha panchayat with regard to the Samajam's right to use 'thodu'. There is reference to suit and second appeal and S.L.P. According to the petitioner, during the remaining period, the padasekharam used to be farmed out for prawn cultivation for which it is ideally suited. It is stated that there were acts of trespass resulted in suits being filed and decree as evident from Exts.P1 and P2. It is stated that the petitioner has farmed out the right to one P.D.Ambrose and the period of cultivation is five months from 17/11/2010. The complaint essentially is that respondent No.2 onwards are trespassing into the padasekharam and are catching prawn and fish to his great detriment. The petitioner filed Ext.P3 complaint. Again the petitioner has filed Ext.P4 and is before us W.P.C.No.34813 of 2010 3 complaining of inaction. 4. Counter affidavit is filed on behalf of respondents 2 to 8. They have produced Ext.R2(a), the decision of the R.D.O dated 29/11/1991. According to respondents 2 to 8, certain conditions were fixed by the R.D.O and the present office bearers are violating the said conditions. It is also stated that it causes severe damage to the residents and the entire area in and around the samajam was put under water logging. Photographs are produced. There is reference to mass representation including illegal conversion of paddy field into prawn filtration without obtaining any prior sanction. Complaining of violation of Ext.R2(a) order, they have also submitted Ext.R2(e) mass petition to the R.D.O, Fort Kochi and he is conducting an enquiry, it is stated. They have, in paragraph 17 of the counter affidavit, stated that the contention in paragraph 4 of the writ petition that respondent No.2 and others are trespassing into the padasekharam and catching prawn and fish amounts to criminal trespass, mischief and theft, is a concocted story to falsely implicate these respondents. 5. The petitioners have filed reply affidavit producing inter alia Exts.P5 and P6 photographs. They denied the W.P.C.No.34813 of 2010 4 allegations. According to them, Ext.R2(a) has been scrupulously followed. 6. We have heard Adv.Sri.S.V.Balakrishna Iyer, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner, Adv.Sri.T.N.Suresh the learned counsel for respondents 2 to 8 and the learned Government Pleader. We have already referred to the submission of respondents 2 to 8 in the counter affidavit that they have not trespassed or committed any theft of fish. We do not think that it is a fit case, having regard to the reliefs as sought for. We must also notice that the contractor, to whom the petitioner has entrusted the work is not before us. We only direct that if there is any complaint filed alleging commission of cognizable offence, necessarily the police will be duty bound to take action in accordance with law. We will also leave it open to the parties to work out remedies before any other forum, if they are so advised. (K.M.JOSEPH, JUDGE) (M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE) jsr // True Copy// PA to Judge W.P.C.No.34813 of 2010 5 W.P.C.No.34813 of 2010 6 W.P.C.No.34813 of 2010 7 K.M.JOSEPH & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. .No. of 200 ORDER/JUDGMENT 30/082010