IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM FRIDAY, THE 5TH AUGUST 2011 / 14TH SRAVANA 1933 WP(C).No. 18882 of 2011(I) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- C.C.PRAKASAN, S/O.CHIDAMBARAN, CHARANGATTU HOUSE, CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT BY ADV. SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI. S. SUJIN SMT. NITA N.S. RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. C.R.JAYARAJ, S/O.RAJAPPAN, CHARANGAHT HOUSE,MARARIKULAM VADAKKU VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT 2. THE SUB IDSPECTOR OF POLICE, ARTHUNGAL, CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT 3. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT 4. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ALAPPUZHA, 5. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM ADV. SRI.J.OM PRAKASH FOR R1 GOVT. PLEADER SRI. M.R. SABU FOR R2 TO R4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT. P1 TRUE COPY OF THE DOCUMENT 1126/09 OF SRO CHERTHALA EXT. P2 TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT NO. 3873004 DATED 8-10-2010 OBTAINED BY THE PETITIONER FROM CHERTHALA SOUTH VILLAGE. EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE TAHSILDAR, CHERTHALA VIDE NO.H1- 12309/2010 DATED 6-9-2010 RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: EXT. R1(i) TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL FILED BEFORE THE RDO ALAPPUZHA DT. 22-10-2010 (TRUE COPY) PS TO JUDGE. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ----------------------------------------------- WP(C). No. 18882 of 2011 ----------------------------------------------- Dated this the 5th day of August, 2011 J U D G M E N T Pius C.Kuriakose, J. In this writ petition under Article 226 the petitioner seeks directions for police protection against the first respondent who is his cousin. He also seeks directions for protection of the property to which he claims title by virtue of Ext.P1 sale deed. As directed by us, the learned Govt. Pleader has taken instructions from respondents 2 to 4 police officers and it is submitted by the learned Govt. Pleader that there is some dispute over the property covered by Ext.P1 and there is a law and order situation as there has been altercations and assaults which arose out of the above dispute. 2. Mr. Om Prakash, learned counsel for the first respondent submitted that actual physical possession of the property is with the first respondent only. According to Mr. WP(C).18882/11 -2- Om Prakash, neither the petitioner nor even his predecessor under whom the petitioner claims, were having possession over the property. The petitioner's predecessor who executed Ext.P1 had in fact filed a suit for injunction against the first respondent. In that suit the petitioner's predecessor failed to get interim orders of injunction. The petitioner's predecessor on finding that no interim orders are passed in his favour would get the above suit dismissed as not pressed and then executed Ext.P1 in favour of the petitioner. Challenging the proceedings of the Tahsildar permitting mutation of names in the basic register in favour of the petitioner, the first respondent has already moved the RDO. According to Mr. Om Prakash, though there may not be any serious objection to this Court granting protection to the life of the petitioner (which according to the counsel is unnecessary). The apprehension of the first respondent is that under the cover of the above protection order the petitioner may trespass into the property covered by Ext.P1. WP(C).18882/11 -3- Mr. Sujin appearing for the petitioner submitted that the property in question is paddy field and hence the contention of the first respondent that he is having actual physical possession is not correct. 3. Having considered the rival submissions addressed at the Bar including the stand taken by the police officers we are of the view that this is not a fit case where police protection directions can be issued in respect of the property covered by Ext.P1. If not over title, there is a subsisting dispute over the possession of property covered by Ext.P1. That dispute should be got settled by the parties through the process of the civil court. We relegate the petitioner and the first respondent to have settlement of the disputes concerning the property through the process of the civil court. 4. At the same time, we think that there is justification for directing the police to keep vigil over the property covered by Ext.P1 and the residential properties of the WP(C).18882/11 -4- petitioner and the first respondent and to take appropriate action so as to avert any danger to the life of the petitioner from the part of the first respondent resulting from the dispute over possession of the property in question. 5. Hence the writ petition is disposed of directing the second respondent to take immediate action if any complaint is received from the petitioner of any danger to his life from first respondent after conducting due enquiries. It should be ensured by the second respondent that no law and order situation arises on account of the dispute between the parties over the properties. It shall be the obligation of the second respondent to see that no danger is caused to the life of the petitioner. (PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE) (C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE) ksv/-