IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS TUESDAY, THE 8TH JUNE 2010 / 18TH JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).No. 17562 of 2010(U) -------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------- 1. CHUNGATH ABDULLAH AGED 76 YEARS, S/O. LATE MOIDEEN CHUNGATH HOUSE, ANGADI AMSOM, DESOM, OTTAPPALAM TALUK. 2. CHANAYILAKATH MYMOONA AGED 35 YEARS, W/O. LATE KUNJUMARAKKAR CHUNGATH HOUSE, ANGADI AMSOM. DESOM OTTAPPALAM TALUK BY ADV. SRI.C.KHALID SRI.T.P.SAJID RESPONDENT: --------------- 1. KALLINGAPPARAMBIL MANIKANDAN AGED 38 YEARS, S/O. LATE UNNI ANGADI AMSOM , DESOM, OTTAPPALAM TALUK. 2. KALLINGAPPARAMBIL AJITH AGED 38 YEARS, S/O. LATE UNNI ANGADI AMSOM, DESOM, OTTAPPALAM TALUK. 3. KALLINGAPPARAMBIL REJITH AGED 28 YEARS, S/O. LATE UNNI ANGADI AMSOM, DESOM, OTTAPPALAM TALUK. 4. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE THRITHALA 5. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE OTTAPPALAM 6. DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE SHORNUR. BY G.P., SHRI C. M. KAMMAPPU FOR R4 - 6. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. M. JOSEPH & M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C).No. 17562 of 2010 U - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 8th day of June, 2010 JUDGMENT Joseph, J. The petitioners have approached this Court seeking the following reliefs: “i) issue a writ of mandamus commanding the respondent Nos. 4 to 6 Police officers to register a crime against respondents 1 to 3 and conduct the investigation into the charge of trespass and mischief committed by respondents 1 to 3 as explained in Ext.P3 complaint; ii) to direct respondent No.4 to 6 to protect the lives and properties of the petitioners from the violence and vandalism of respondents 1 to 3; and W.P.(C).No. 17562 of 2010 2 iii) to pass an interim order directing respondents 4 to 6 to seize and preserve the branches of the trees chopped by respondents 1 to 3 as evidence of their trespass and mischief.” 2. Briefly the case of the petitioners is as follows. Petitioners are the father and widow of late Kunhumarakkar, who passed away on 16.1.2010, leaving behind themselves and three minor children born to the second petitioner. Respondents 1 to 3 are the children of late Unni, who is the landlord of the properties. Unni executed a simple mortgage deed in favour of one Unnikrishnan Nair, from whom he borrowed some amount. The simple mortgage was not redeemed or discharged either by Unni or the third respondent. The properties were purchased from Unni by the first petitioner and he is in possession thereof until they were assigned to his son late Kunhumarakkar, as evidenced by Exts.P3 and P4 assignment deeds. 3. The Land Tribunal, Thrithala had issued certificates of purchase of jenm right as provided in Section 72 of the Land Reforms W.P.(C).No. 17562 of 2010 3 Act to the first petitioner as per Exts.P1 and P2. At present the petitioners and three minor children of late Kunhumarakkar are the absolute owners of the property. 4. There is an attempt on the part of respondents 1 to 3 to grab the property. The petitioners filed O.S.19 of 2010 before the Munsiff Court for injunction. The suit was subsequently withdrawn. The further allegation is that respondents 1 to 3 are continuing to harass, threaten and attempt to trespass into the property owned by the petitioners abusing their political influence. They caused damage of Rs.10,000/- by chopping the branches of the trees standing in the property. The lives of the petitioners are in danger. 5. We heard learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri.C. Khalid. 6. As far as the first prayer is concerned, we feel that it is settled law by virtue of the decision of the Apex Court as also of this Court that a writ petition may not be maintainable and it is for the petitioners to take such steps which are available to them under the Code of Civil Procedure. With regard to the second prayer, we feel that it is more W.P.(C).No. 17562 of 2010 4 appropriate if the petitioners approach the competent civil Court and seek their remedies. 7. We dispose of the Writ Petition relegating the petitioners to approach the competent forum and seek reliefs. We, however, make it clear that if there is complaint of commission of any cognizable offence by the party respondents, respondents 1 and 2 shall take appropriate action in accordance with law. (K. M. JOSEPH) Judge (M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS) Judge tm