IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI THURSDAY, THE 5TH JUNE 2008 / 15TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 14011 of 2008(R) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- POKKASARAKATH ABDULLA S/O.KUNHI AHAMMED HAJI, AGED 74 YEARS MANAGING DIRECTOR, ACADEMY FOR ADVANCEMENT OF RESOURCES AND TALENTS LTD., LAKKIDI P.O. VYTHIRI KUNNATHIDAVAKA VILLAGE, WAYANAD BY ADV. SRI.P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, WAYANAD 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE VYTHIRI POLICE STATION, WAYANAD. 3. T. NAZEERUDEEN, S/O.T.K.MEHAMOOD PRESIDENT, VYAPARI VYAVASAI EKOPANA SAMITI VYAPARA BHAVAN, BANK ROAD, KOZHIKODE, RESIDING AT BEUTY ASHARUS, KANNOR ROAD, KOZHIKODE. 4. ENMOSE, S/O.T.NAZEERDEEN, RESIDING AT BEUTY ASHARUS, KANNOR ROAD, KOZHIKODE. R1 & R2 BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.BENJAMIN PAUL BY ADV. SRI.R.BINDU (SASTHAMANGALAM) FOR R3 & R4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. ------------------------------------------ W.P.(C) No.14011 of 2008 ------------------------------------------ Dated, this the 5th day of June, 2008 JUDGMENT Balakrishnan Nair, J. The petitioner is the Managing Director of a company which owns about 161 acres of land in Kunnathidavaka Village in Wayanad District. The company entered into an agreement for sale of about 27.4 acres out of the above 161 acres of land to the third respondent. The said respondent proposes to establish a medical college and hospital in the said property. In the meantime, there was a declaration by the competent authority that 20 hectares of land owned by the petitioner is ecologically fragile land in terms of the relevant statute. But the said property was not identified or demarcated. So the petitioner submits that the property agreed to be sold to the third respondent could not be sold because of the said declaration. According to the petitioner, because of the said legal impediment, the third respondent withdrew from the agreement and did not come forward to get the sale deed registered though the petitioner has already executed it as evident from Ext.P2. The petitioner further points out that initially the third respondent issued a lawyer notice calling upon him to execute the sale deed and register the same, but the said respondent did not pursue it thereafter. The petitioner claims that the entire extent of 161 acres of land is in his possession. While so, persons claiming to be members of Vyapari Vyavasayi Ekopana Samithy under the leadership of respondents 3 and 4 attempted to trespass into his property and reduce a portion of the same to their possession. So the petitioner filed a civil suit as O.S.No.75 of 2008 before the Sub Court, Sulthanbathery seeking an W.P.(C) No.14011 of 2008 2 injunction against them. Ext.P4 is the plaint in that suit. The civil court passed an interim order of injunction against the defendants therein. While so, the persons claiming to be members of the Vyapari Vyavasayi Ekopana Samithy came to the petitioner's residence, manhandled him and his staff. Therefore, his son in law preferred Ext.P3 complaint before the police. They also came to the resort run by the petitioner in his property and threatened his staff there. Based on the complaint of the staff two crimes have been registered against the miscreants. The threat is continuing even now. It is in the above background this writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs: “a) issue a writ order or direction directing the respondents 1 and 2 to afford adequate police protection from respondents 3, 4 and their men to the property of the petitioner's company covered by Ext.P1 assignment deed. b) issue a writ order or direction directing the respondents 1 and 2 to afford adequate protection to the life of the petitioner, his staff and relatives from respondents 3, 4 and their men.” 2. The third respondent has filed a counter affidavit denying the allegations against him and the 4th respondent who is his son. According to the said respondent, the property covered by Ext.P2 has been handed over to the Vyapari Vyavasyi Ekopana Samithy. Now the same is in its possession. The Samithy has already laid foundation stone for the construction of the college building. This is evident from Ext.R3(a) photograph. A local Member of Parliament has laid the foundation stone, it is submitted. The entire sale consideration was received by the petitioner and the entire property has been W.P.(C) No.14011 of 2008 3 put in the possession of the Samithy. He also executed Ext.P2 sale deed. Because of the objection raised by the Sub Registrar, Ext.P2 cannot be registered. Now that the land value has gone up, the petitioner wanted to wriggle out of the liability arising out of the agreement for sale. The third respondent also denies the allegation of trespass, mischief, etc. Members of the Samithy or its supporters have not harassed the petitioner or manhandled his staff. It is also submitted that concerning the property no police protection can be granted. The order obtained by the petitioner is only an ex parte interim order. The Samithy has filed its objections to the interim application and the matter is posted for hearing before the Sub Court . 3. Heard learned counsel on both sides. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that he is pressing only prayer No.2, i.e. for police protection to the life of the petitioner and his staff members. Learned counsel for the third respondent submitted that protection may not be granted which may enable the petitioner to enter into the disputed property which is in the possession of the Vyapari Vyavasayi Ekopana Samithy. Learned Government Pleader upon instructions submitted that both parties were summoned to the police station and advised to settle their disputes through the form of civil court. It is also submitted that the petitioner did not co-operate with the police by filing any written complaint. 4. The dispute regarding the property covered by Ext.P2 has to be settled by the civil court. Contentions of both sides regarding the said property are kept open. But, if there is any threat to the life of the petitioner when he goes around for his normal avocation, from the third respondent or his W.P.(C) No.14011 of 2008 4 supporters, he may inform the police, in which event the police shall render necessary protection. The petitioner is also entitled to get protection to his staff who are working in the resort or in his house. If there is any threat, on being alerted, the police shall look into the same and extend necessary protection to the members of his staff. The above protection order shall not be used by the petitioner to advance his interest in the civil dispute concerning the 27.4 acres of land covered by Ext.P2. For enforcing the orders of the civil court concerning that property the petitioner has to move the civil court itself. The writ petition is disposed of as above. (K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR) JUDGE (M.C.HARI RANI) JUDGE vns