IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI TUESDAY, THE 5TH AUGUST 2008 / 14TH SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 18506 of 2008(C) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ JINCY, THURUTHIYIL VEEDU, KUTHUPARA KARA, VELLATHOOVAL VILLAGE, DEVIKULAM TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.T.RAJASEKHARAN NAIR RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, IDUKKI DISTRICT. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VELLATHOOVAL POLICE STATION, IDUKKI. 3. T.J.MATHEW, S/O.JOSEPH, THURUTHIYIL VEEDU, KUTHUPARA KARA, VELLATHOOVAL VILLAGE, DEVIKULAM TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT. 4. VINOD.T.J., THURUTHIYIL VEEDU, KUTHUPARA KARA, VELLATHOOVAL VILLAGE, DEVIKULAM TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY SR.GOVT.PLEADER SHRI BENJAMIN PAUL FOR R1 & R2 ADV. SRI.K.B.ARUNKUMAR FOR R4 SRI.SUJESH MENON V.B. FOR R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX IN W.P.(C)No.18506/08 PETITIONER'S EXTS: EXT.P1: TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE MARRIAGE CERTIFICATE. EXT.P2: TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE DEATH CERTIFICATE OF THE PETITIONER'S HUSBAND DATED 23.12.2005. EXT.P3: TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE SALE DEED OF 2.5 ACRES OF PATTA LAND SOLD BY MR.MATHEW THOMAS TO THE PETITIONER'S HUSBAND DATED 4.7.2000. EXT.P4: TRUE PHOTOCPYOF THE TAX RECEIPT, WHICH SHOWS THE PAYMENT OF PROPERTY TAX DATED 28.7.2000. EXT.P5: TRUE PHOTOCPY OF THE FIR LODGED BY THE VELLATHOOVAL POLICE BEFORE THE JFCM COURT, ADIMALY. EXT.P6: TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VELLATHOOVAL AND ALSO BEFORE THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, IDUKKI DATED 11.6.2008. ADDL.EXTS: EXT.P7: TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT EVIDENCING PAYMENT OF BUILDING TAX IN RESPECT OF THE HOUSE, CONSTRUCTED BY THE PETITIONER'SLATE HUSBAND. EXT.P8: TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE SUICIDE NOTE LEFT BY THE PETITIONERS HUSBAND sHRI SANTHOSH EXPRESSING HIS WISH TO TRANSFER ALL HIS PROPERTIES. RESPONDENTS' EXTS: EXT.R3(a): TRUE COPY OF THE TITLE DEED DOCUMENT NO.1352/92 OF ERATTUPETTA SRO. EXT.R3(b): TRUE COPY OF RECEIPT EVIDENCING PAYMENT OF BUILDING TAX IN RESPECT OF THE HOUSE BELONGING TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.R4(a): TRUE COY OF TAX RECEIPT DATED 28.7.2000. TRUE COPY K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & M.C.HARI RANI JJ. ----------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C)No.18506 OF 2008-C ----------------------------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 5th DAY OF AUGUST, 2008 J U D G M E N T Balakrishnan Nair, J. The petitioner is the widow of late Santhosh who is the brother of respondents 3 and 4. The petitioner's marriage took place on 16.5.2005. After seven months, her husband committed suicide. He was owning certain properties. One of them is covered by Exhibit P3 sale deed. The petitioner along with her husband was residing in that property. But, soon after the death of her husband, his brothers demolished the building and she was constrained to shift her residence to her father's house. Now, when she attempted to construct a residential building in the property covered by Exhibit P3, respondents 3 and 4 obstructed and they manhandled the father of the petitioner. On lodging information before the Police, Exhibit P5 crime has been registered against the 4th respondent. The party respondents have no right over the property covered by Exhibit P3. So, they have no right to interfere, when she is constructing a building there, it is submitted. So, she preferred Exhibit P6 representation before the police seeking necessary protection. Since, the police did not take any steps, this writ petition is filed, seeking the following reliefs: W.P.(C)No.18506/08-C -2- I. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction directing the respondents 1 & 2 to provide adequate and effective police protection for reconstructing the building of the petitioner, which has already been demolished by respondents 3 and 4. II. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction directing the respondents 1 and 2 to provide adequate and effective police protection to the life and property of the petitioner and her family members from respondents 3 and 4 with immediate effect. 2. The learned Government Pleader upon instructions submitted that after the registration of Exhibit P5 crime, there is no law and order problem warranting interference of the police. The petitioner and her father are coming to the property and doing agricultural operations there. Nobody is obstructing them. In fact the petitioner is taking food from the house of one of the brothers of her husband, it is submitted. 3. The respondents 3 and 4 have filed separate counter affidavits denying all the allegations against them. The 3rd respondent would submit that the property covered by Exhibit P3 is in his exclusive possession and he has constructed a residential building there and is staying there. Both the party respondents point out that being a widow of a Christian, who died intestate and without issues, she is entitled to get only 50% of the property covered by Exhibit P3. Without partition, the petitioner cannot construct a building there. It is further submitted that none of the parents of the deceased Santhosh are alive. So, the brothers of the deceased are entitled to get 50% share in his properties. Respondents 3 and 4 submitted that they have no intention to physically harm the petitioner. 4. The dispute concerning the property covered by Exhibit P3 is a W.P.(C)No.18506/08-C -3- civil dispute. But, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is no dispute regarding the said property. The said contention is plainly untenable. The petitioner claims exclusive possession and title over the property, whereas the brothers of her husband claim half share in the property. Further, the 3rd respondent claims exclusive possession of the said property and he further claims that he is residing in a residential building constructed there. So, the dispute between the parties regarding the right over the property is a civil dispute. 5. In a petition for police protection, this Court cannot adjudicate the rival claims of the parties over the property covered by Exhibit P3 and thereafter direct the police to implement the finding of this Court. This Court has no such jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. We can issue directions to remedy the failure of duty from the part of the police. In this case, the police have no power or authority to adjudicate the rival claims over the property covered by Exhibit P3, enter a finding in favour of the petitioner and thereafter grant protection to the petitioner to construct a residential building in the property. No statute has been brought to our notice whereunder the police is authorised to adjudicate a civil dispute, take a decision and based on their decision, render protection to the party, who is W.P.(C)No.18506/08-C -4- found eligible by them for the same. In the absence of any duty for the police, in this regard and the corresponding right in the petitioner, this Court cannot issue any direction to the police to grant protection to the petitioner to construct the residential building. See the recent decision of this Court in Sadananda Bai T.V. v. C.M.Ravi ( 2008 (3) KHC 76). To enforce her right over the property, the petitioner has to move the competent civil court and to obtain appropriate orders. 6. If the orders of the civil court are violated, the said court can address the police to render assistance to the petitioner to enforce its orders. So, the prayer for police protection for the construction of the building for the petitioner is declined, but without prejudice to the contentions of the petitioner and her right to move the competent civil court for appropriate reliefs. The submissions made by respondents 3 and 4 that they will not physically harm the petitioner will be sufficient to dispel the apprehension of the petitioner that she is facing threat to her life from the said respondents. It is clarified that if any cognizable offence is reported, the powers of the police to take appropriate action will not be affected by this judgment. The writ petition is disposed of as above. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR,JUDGE. M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE. dsn