IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN TUESDAY, THE 2ND DECEMBER 2008 / 11TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 WP(C).No. 12280 of 2008(J) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. INDIRA RAVEENDRAN, T.C.4/1702, BELHAVEN GARDENS, KOWDIAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. P.RAVEENDRAN PILLAI, T.C.4/1702, BELHAVEN GARDENS, KOWDIAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.R.MANOJ SMT.MEREENA JOSEPH SMT.LAKSHMI K.V. RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KATTAKADA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. SUHARA BEEVI, D/O.KOCHUPATHUMAL, MELE PUTHEN VEEDU, KILLI, KEELATHUMMEL VILLAGE, NEDUMANGAD TALUK. 3. KABEER, MELE PUTHEN VEEDU, KILLI, KEELATHUMMEL VILLAGE, NEDUMANGAD TALUK. 4. PEERUM AHAMMED, S/O.KOCHUPATHUMAL, MUMTAZ MANZIL, KONNIYUR VILLAGE, PERUMKULAM VILLAGE. ADV. SRI.R.S.KALKURA FOR R2,3 SR.GOVT. PLEADER SRI.BENJAMIN PAUL - R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC 12280/08 APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXTS. EXT.P1 - TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN O.S.NO.619/1997 ON THE FILES OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, NEDUMANGAD DATED 17.12.2003. EXT.P2 - TRUE COPY OF THE DELIVERY REPORT OF THE AMIN OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, NEDUMANGAD. EXT.P2(a) – TRUE COPY OF THE DELIVERY KYCHIT SIGNED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P3 - TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P4 - TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE'S COURT, KATTAKKADA. EXT.P5 - TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER BEFORE THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KATTAKKADA. /TRUE COPY/ K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & V.K.MOHANAN, JJ. ----------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO. 12280 OF 2008-J ----------------------------------------- Dated 2nd December, 2008. JUDGMENT Balakrishnan Nair, J. The petitioners are husband and wife. They have purchased 10.5 cents of land in Sy.No.592/1-2 of Perumkulam Village from the 2nd respondent, on 3.7.1996. Soon thereafter, on 6.7.1996, the said respondent sold the property to a third party. On coming to know of the above transaction, the petitioners filed O.S.No.619/1997 before the Principal Munsiff's Court, Nedumangad, to cancel that sale deed and also seeking consequential reliefs. The said suit was decreed. The court declared the title of the 1st plaintiff, who is the 1st petitioner herein over the plaint schedule properties and the plaintiffs were permitted to recover those properties through the process of the court. Though the aforementioned property was sold to the petitioners on 3.7.1996, they were not put in possession of the same. The petitioners submit, the WPC 12280/08 2 Amin of the court took possession of the property having an extent of 10.5 cents, which is plaint A schedule item and delivered the same to the petitioners and they were put in possession. Later, when the petitioners tried to go to the property, they were physically obstructed by the party respondents. The proposed buyer of the property was also obstructed. Therefore, the petitioners filed Ext.P3 petition before the 1st respondent C.I of Police, seeking necessary protection for them to enter the property. They also filed Ext.P4 complaint before the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Kattakkada against the party respondents, alleging various offences under the Penal Code, including under Sections 415, 418, 420 etc. The learned Magistrate forwarded the complaint to the Kattakkada Police under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. Thereupon, the police registered a crime against the accused mentioned therein. In the above factual background, this Writ Petition is filed, seeking the following relief: “(i) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order, commanding the 1st respondent to afford adequate and meaningful police protection to the petitioners and their property covered by Exts.P1 & P1(a) [sic – P2(a)].” WPC 12280/08 3 During the pendency of the writ petition, the 2nd petitioner again filed Ext.P5 petition before the police, seeking necessary protection to enter the property mentioned above. Alleging that the police did not take any effective action, this Writ Petition is filed. 2. The learned Government Pleader, upon instructions, submitted that even now the erstwhile owners are in possession of the property, though, technically, the petitioners were put in possession by the civil court. The police cannot interfere to evict the persons in possession of a property. It is a civil dispute. So, the police did not interfere, it is submitted. 3. We heard the learned counsel for respondents 2 and 3. According to him, the sale in question was a sale as security for the loan amount received by the said respondents from the petitioners. That is why the said respondents always continued in possession of the property. 4. In this jurisdiction, we are concerned only with the failure of duty from the part of the police. In other words, our powers are co- terminous with the breach of duty of the police. Having regard to the WPC 12280/08 4 facts of the case, we feel that the police have no authority to peruse the documents of both sides, hear them and then, on finding that the petitioners are entitled to retain possession of the property, come to their aid and throw out the party respondents from the building in their possession. We notice that there is no statute in force in India, which authorises the police to venture to take such steps. Only the civil court can do that. So, the petitioners may approach the civil court for appropriate orders. The said court can address the police to render assistance to the petitioners to enforce its orders. In view of the above position, this Writ Petition is dismissed without prejudice to the contentions of the petitioners and their right to move other forums for appropriate reliefs. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE. V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE. Nm/