IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 1ST PHALGUNA 1929 WP(C).No. 34319 of 2006(I) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ MRS. JOLLY THOMAS, W/O. THOMAS, AGED 78 YEARS, THE MALABAR PRODUCE & RUBBER COMPANY LTD., VEPPUR ESTATE, THAMARASSERY P.O., KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.RAMKUMAR RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF SURVEY, CIVIL STATION, CALICUT, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 4. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, (RURAL), KOZHIKODE, P.O.VADAKARA. 5. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THAMARASSERY, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. ADDL. RESPONDENTS: 6. RAVEENDRAN, S/O.ARUMA, AGED 36 YEARS, RESIDING AT KAPPUMMAL HOUSE, P.O.AVIDANALLOOR, KOOTALLIDA NADAUVANNUR, BALUSSERI, NOW RESIDING AT AMBAYATHODU COLONY AT III PLOT. 7. MAJEED, S/O. KUMARAN, AGED 50 YEARS, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT AMBAYATHODU COLONY III PLOT. WPC 34319/2006 (ADDL. R6 AND R7 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DTD. 28.9.2007 IN IA 13076/07) BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.P.A.SALIM. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC 34319/2006 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXTS. EXT.P1 - TRUE COPY OF THE TALUK LAND BOARD'S ORDER DATED 26.11.1991. EXT.P2 - TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE GOVERNMENT. EXT.P3 - TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS COURT IN OP NO.1703/96 C EXT.P4 - TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WRIT APPEAL 1619/98. EXT.P5 - TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN OP NO.3366/02S EXT.P6 - TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER NUMBREED GO (RT) NO.695/90 RD. EXT.P7 - TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BEFORE THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOZHIKODE DATED 28.9.98. EXT.P8 - TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION BEFORE THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE DATED 5.4.2000. EXT.P9 - TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BEFORE THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE DATED 7.12.05. EXT.P10 - TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT BEFORE THE SUB INSPECTOR DATED 15.8.2006. EXT.P11 - TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT BEFORE THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE DATED 25.8.2006. EXT.P12 - TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BEFORE THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE DATED 17.9.2006. EXT.P13 - TRUE COPY OF SIX PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE PLACE OF OCCURRENCE IN P12 COMPLAINT. EXT.P14 - TRUE COPY OF THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR'S ORDER DATED 24.5.2006. EXT.P15 - TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BEFORE RESPONDENT NO.5 DATED 4.12.2006. EXT.P16 - TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BEFORE RESPONDENT NO.4 DATED 4.12.2006. EXT.P17 - TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BEFORE RESPONDENT NO.1 DATED 4.12.2006. EXT.P18 - TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BEFORE RESPONDENT NO.2 DATED 4.12.2006. /TRUE COPY/ K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & P.N.RAVINDRAN, JJ. ----------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO. 34319 OF 2006-I ----------------------------------------- Dated 20th February, 2008. JUDGMENT Balakrishnan Nair, J. The petitioner is the Manager of a rubber estate which is having an extent of 416.05 acres of land. Rubber, coffee, cashew etc., are grown there. The Taluk Land Board, as per Ext.P1 order, had declared that out of the above extent of land, 116 acres of land is surplus land. The petitioner submits, though the land has been notionally taken over, no boundary has been fixed, demarcating the surplus land from the land belonging to her. As part of a political agitation, large number of people encroached into the area declared as surplus land. The petitioner also submits, those encroachers are a perpetual source of trouble for her. They have damaged the concrete posts demarcating the boundary. They have time and again trespassed into the estate and committed theft of the agricultural produce. She further submits, the police have been alerted from time to time about this, by filing Exts.P8 to P12 representations. Ext.P13 photographs would WPC 34319/2006 2 show the mischief committed by the encroachers on the boundary erected by the petitioner. In the context of the motion made by the petitioner before the various authorities, finally the District Collector directed the police to grant protection to her life and property. Since no effective action was taken, the petitioner filedExt.P15 representation dated 4.12.2006 before the Sub Inspector of Police, to establish a police out-post in the colony, which has come into existence in the excess land and grant protection to her. It was followed by Exts.P17 and P18 representations before the Government. Thereafter, this writ petition was filed, seeking the following reliefs: “1. To issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ order or direction commanding respondents 2, 4 & 5 to provide adequate police protection for the life and property (Veppur estate) of the petitioner by stationing a police out-post in the excess land colony situated on the border of the present Veppur estate. 2. To issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ order or direction commanding respondents 1 & 3 to survey the excess land and the remaining parts of Veppur estate and to fix their boundaries by demarcating the same through their subordinate officials at the earliest.” 2. The 5th respondent S.I of Police has filed a statement. It is submitted therein that the police have registered two crimes against the theft of agricultural produce of the petitioner and final report has been filed in one of them. It is also submitted that as and when complaints were received WPC 34319/2006 3 from the petitioner, they were duly enquired into and appropriate action taken. It is further submitted that as and when specific incidents of criminal act are reported, the police will extend protection to the petitioner. 3. The substantial grievance of the petitioner will be redressed, if the surplus land is demarcated from the property of the petitioner, as directed by this Court in Ext.P4 judgment. The petitioner submits, the same has not, so far, been done. If that be so, the petitioner can work out her remedy against the same. The police cannot be asked to stand guard for the property of the petitioner always. She has to make her own arrangement to protect her property. But, if any cognizable offence like theft, is committed or there is threat to the life of the petitioner, she may inform the police and in that event the police shall promptly look into the same and taken action in accordance with law. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE. P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE. Nm/