IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH MARCH 2011 / 18TH PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 28255 of 2009(Y) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- 1. M.PARAMESWARAN NAIR, VRINDAHAVAN, KARUMALLOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 2. P.MADHU, VELANGATTU HOUSE, MANGANAM P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.P.ASHOK KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ALUVA. 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ALUVA POLICE STATION, ALUVA. 3. GEESON.P.P., PANJIKKARAN HOUSE, KARUMALLOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 4. P.A.SUTHAN, PERUMITTATH HOUSE, THATTAMPADI, KARUMALLOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. *ADDL.R5 TO R8 IMPLEADED: R5. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R6. HOME SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. Kss ..2/- ...2.... WPC.NO.28255/2009 B R7. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, POLICE HEAD QUARTERS, VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R8. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (RURAL), ALUVA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. (*ADDL.RESPONDENTS 5 TO 8 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DTD. 15/10/2009 IN I.A.NO.12747/09) R1, R2,R5 TO R8 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. C.M.CHARISMA R3 & R4 BY ADVS. SRI.BABU KARUKAPADATH, SMT.M.A.VAHEEDA BABU, SRI.JAGAN GEORGE, SRI.K.A.NOUSHAD, SRI.P.G.PRAMOD, SRI.KANDAMPULLY RAHUL. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/03/2011 ALONG WITH WPC NO. 29968 OF 2009 AND WPC NO. 33185 OF 2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.28255/2009 B APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST AND 2ND RESPONDENT DTD. 1/10/09. P2: COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE OFFICE OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT. P3: PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE PROPERTY OF THE PETITIONERS. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: R3(A): COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE NEWSPAPER REPORT IN MALAYALA MANORAMA DAILY DTD. 23/09/2007. R3(B): COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE NEWSPAPER REPORT IN MATHRUBHUMI DAILY DTD. 22/09/2007. R3(C): COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE NEWSPAPER REPORT IN MALAYALA MANORAMA DAILY DTD. 22/12/2007. R3(D): COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE NEWSPAPER REPORT IN MALAYALA MANORAMA DAILY DTD. 21/12/2007. R3(E): COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE NEWSPAPER REPORT IN MALAYALA MANORAMA DAILY DTD. 4/09/2009. R3(F): COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE NEWSPAPER REPORT IN MATHRUBHUMI DAILY DTD. 30/07/2009. R3(G): COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE NEWSPAPER REPORT IN MALAYALA MANORAMA DAILY DTD. 6/08/2009. R3(H): COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE PRESENT POSITION OF THE PADDY CULTIVATED IN THE KARUMALLOOR AREA. /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO JUDGE Kss R.BASANT & K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------------------------ W.P(C) NOS:28255, 29968 & 33185 OF 2009 ----------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 9th March, 2011. JUDGMENT Basant, J. Petitioners in these writ petitions are owners of adjacent lands measuring 29 cents (WPC 33185/2009), 30 cents (WPC 29968/2009) and 1.31 acres (WPC 28255/2009). They have an identical grievance to raise before this Court. According to them the party respondents have illegally trespassed into their lands and have attempted to convert the same into paddy fields. As part of the attempt they have indulged in mischievous and illegal acts. They have ploughed the lands and made it ready for paddy cultivation. These acts have been indulged in by the party respondents taking law into their own hands. They have no right to indulge in such conduct. The petitioners are owners of land and they have a right to deal with their property. The party respondents have no rights to enter into their property and to convert the same for use as paddy fields. Complaints were made before the police. The police did not take prompt action. It is in these circumstances that the petitioners came to this Court with WPC 28255,29968 & 33185/2009 2 this petition claiming issue of directions under Art.226 of the Constitution to respondents police officials to afford police protection to them. 2. Respondents 3 to 5 in WPC 33185 are the President of a local panchayath as also office bearers of a local Padasekhara samithi. They along with some others have been arrayed as respondents in the other two writ petitions. Identical contentions are raised by the party respondents. They assert that they have no role to play in the alleged illegal acts committed in the properties of the petitioner. But according to them there is a total extent of 225 acres of land. The entire land was used earlier for paddy cultivation. That entire land including the land of the petitioners is part of a padasekharam. For some period of time cultivation was not carried out in the said padasekharam. After a considerable period of time when no such cultivation was undertaken in the padasekharam the local people had decided to resume cultivation of lands in the padasekharam. This was not done in secrecy or on the sly. Block panchayath had rendered a support. The District Collector had inaugurated the programme for paddy cultivation. According to the contesting respondents the petitioners are WPC 28255,29968 & 33185/2009 3 bound to use their property for paddy cultivation. They are not entitled to use their land for any activity other than paddy cultivation. They are attempting to avoid the obligation to conduct paddy cultivation in the property. Petitioner in WPC 33185/2009 is asserting a right to undertake a construction in the property. He cannot undertake such a construction activity in the paddy field without obtaining the requisite permission. In short the contesting respondents do not take a specific stand that they were responsible for the alleged alterations in the land of the petitioners but they take the stand that the entire padasekharam including the land of the petitioners are to be used for paddy cultivation. 3. Interim orders were issued in these three petitions on various dates directing the police officials to ensure that law and order is maintained and that the party respondents or anyone else do not commit any act of trespass into the property of the petitioners. 4. We have heard counsel for the petitioners and the party respondents. We have heard the learned Govt. Pleader. Records have been perused by us. WPC 28255,29968 & 33185/2009 4 5. Significantly the title and possession of the petitioners over the lands in respect of which relief is claimed by them is not disputed. They contend that they are not willing to undertake paddy cultivation in the property. Indications galore to suggest that there has been some attempt in the properties of the petitioner to use such properties for paddy cultivation. According to the petitioners they did not do the same but trespassers led by the party respondents or at the instance of the party respondents had indulged in such conduct. 6. Materials available at present are not sufficient to come to a specific and positive conclusion as to who had made such alterations. But the fact remains that the petitioners are title holders of possession. They do not want such conversion or activities in their properties. In these circumstances we are of the opinion that the petitioners are entitled to get orders for police protection in respect of their properties. The learned Govt. Pleader on behalf of police officers -respondents submits that interim orders have been duly enforced by the police officials. Crimes have been registered and necessary action has been taken. If the Court so directs the police officials are willing to offer continued protection to the petitioners. WPC 28255,29968 & 33185/2009 5 7. It is significant that the contesting party respondents also do not deny the right of the petitioners as title holders in possession of the properties. In these circumstances we are satisfied that the petitioners can be granted police protection as prayed for by them. Interim orders already issued can be made absolute. 8. The petitioners have a prayer that the party respondents may be ordered to restore the properties to their original possession prior to the alleged contumacious acts. In the alternative it is prayed that the party respondents may be directed to compensate the petitioners for the loss suffered by them. As already indicated specific material to indicate that the party respondents are personally involved in and responsible for the alleged conversion/contumacious acts is not available in the case and we do in these circumstances feel that it will only be appropriate to leave the petitioners to pursue their remedies in accordance with law for such relief – restoration of property and/or award of compensation. We do not think it necessary to issue such directions invoking our jurisdiction under Art.226. Such a comprehensive dispute on facts cannot be resolved by us in proceedings under Art.226 of the Constitution. Needless to WPC 28255,29968 & 33185/2009 6 say the petitioners right to claim restoration/compensation shall remain unfettered by the disposal of these writ petitions. 9. The learned counsel for the party respondents submits that the petitioners are attempting to run away with an order of police protection in an obvious attempt to avoid action against them under the Kerala Land Utilisation order and the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act. Counsel prays that it may be made clear that this order will be without any prejudice to the right, power and duty of the authorities concerned to take necessary action under the above enactments. The learned counsel for the party respondents further submits that from an irrigation canal water is drawn to the rest of the paddy cultivation in the padasekharam through water channels that exist in/by the side of properties of the petitioners. There is no specific and sufficient pleadings or evidence to come to any such specific conclusions in this case. We need only mention that if there be any such water channels through/by the side of the properties of the petitioners, the right of the party respondents/others to claim that such water channels must be maintained as such or should not be interfered with shall not in any way be fettered by this judgment. WPC 28255,29968 & 33185/2009 7 10. There is a claim for an order of protection of life of the petitioners. We do not perceive any threat to the life of the petitioners. The dispute basically is one related to land. We are not satisfied that any specific direction for protection of life need be given. We take note of the submission of the learned Govt. Pleader on behalf of the police officials/respondents that if there be any threat to the life of the petitioners from the party respondents, adequate and necessary action shall be taken. 11. In the result; a) These petitions are allowed. b) Respondents – police officials in the respective writ petitions are directed to afford police protection to the petitioners against any contumacious, culpable and violent acts by the party respondents within the properties of the petitioners. c) It is made clear that this judgment will not fetter the rights of the petitioners to claim restoration of property or to claim compensation from persons who are responsible for the alleged illegal/contumacious acts committed within their property. d) It is further made clear that this judgment will not in any way fetter the rights/duty/powers of the authorities WPC 28255,29968 & 33185/2009 8 concerned to take necessary action under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order or Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act in accordance with law. e) We further make it clear that this judgment shall not in any way affect the rights of the party respondents or others to claim any rights in respect of water channels which are said to exist in the properties in/by the side of the properties of the petitioners. R.BASANT Judge K. SURENDRA MOHAN Judge jj WPC 28255,29968 & 33185/2009 9