IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN MONDAY, THE 21ST DECEMBER 2009 / 30TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 29871 of 2009(D) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- V.VENUGOPALAN, HARI BHAVAN, MEL VETTOOR P.O., VARKALA, TRIVANDRUM DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.M.BALAGOVINDAN SMT.MINI GANGADHARAN RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, OFFICE OF THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VARKALA POLICE STATION, VARKALA. 3. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, OFFICE OF THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VARKALA POLICE STATION, VARKALA. BY MR. P.N. SANTHOSH, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. ---------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.29871 of 2009 - D ---------------------------------------- Dated 21st December, 2009 Judgment The petitioner purchased a parcel of land together with the building therein from Sri.Joshi, S/o.Chandrahasan as per Ext.P1 sale deed dated 26.6.2009. The petitioner states that though the sale deed was executed and he was put in possession, at the request of the vendor, he permitted the vendor to reside in the said building. The vendor passed away on 10.7.2009 in suspicious circumstances. Thereupon, a crime was registered and an investigation was conducted. It is stated that possession of the land and the building which the petitioner had purchased as per Ext.P1 was taken over by the Police for the purpose of investigation. The grievance voiced by the petitioner is that notwithstanding repeated requests, the key of the building has not been returned to him. In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents to hand over the key of the building and the articles if any taken away from the said building. W.P.(C) No.29871/2009 2 2. The second respondent, the Circle Inspector of Police, Varkala has filed a counter affidavit dated 21.12.2009. Paragraphs 3, 4 and 5 thereof read as follows: “3. It is submitted that on 8.7.2009 at about 9 a.m. One Vinod informed the Station House Officer of the Varkala Police Station that the proprietor of the M/s.Joshy Agencies, Varkala viz., Mr. Joshy, his wife Smitha and three children were found dead in their residential building bearing door No.XIV/32 (A). It was also informed that the informant viz. Mr. Vinod who is an employee of the deceased Joshi that he went to the residence of the deceased, but in spite of repeated effort to wake up the deceased and his family members, he was not successful in his effort and that the telephone call made to the residential building was also not attended. In the above situation, the said Vinod along with the neighbours of the deceased broken open the door of the work area of the building and entered into the building and found the entire familydead in the house. 4. On getting the above information, crime No.557/09 of the Varkala Police Station was registered u/s. 174 Cr.P.C. And enquiry was conducted and inquest of the dead bodies were also conducted by the Police Offiers. The Police had entered the building only to make the investigation and the building is not kept under lock and the key of the Police. 5. The petitioner had approached this respondent as also the Station House Officer of the Varkala Police Station with Ext.P3 and P4 representations requesting for key. The petitioner was informed that the key of the said building is not with the Police and the Police has nothing to do with the return of the key. Since the police does W.P.(C) No.29871/2009 3 not retain the key of the building, there is no point in seeking a direction from this Hon'ble Court to return the key which is not in the possession of the Police. If the petitioner is the owner of the building, he can have possession of the building in accordance with law and the prayer for return of other articles retained in the building has to be decided to the competent authority on approving the ownership of the immovable therein. The police has nothing to do with the petitioner or anyone legally entitled to the building occupying it in accordance with law. It is submitted that the police cannot be burdened with the responsibility of deciding the ownership of the articles said to be remaining in the house occupied by the deceased. This is to be done between the petitioner and the legal heirs of the deceased under adjudication of the competent authority.” 3. The second respondent has in the counter affidavit stated in categorical terms that the Police have not taken over the key of the building nor possession of the land and the building. It is also stated that if the petitioner is the owner of the building, he can have possession of the building in accordance with law.. In view of the stand taken by the Circle Inspector of Police in the counter affidavit, the petitioner cannot have any apprehension that he will not be permitted by the Police to re-enter the building described in Ext.P1 sale deed. As the land owner, the petitioner has the right of entry W.P.(C) No.29871/2009 4 into the premises and the Police cannot therefore prevent from entering into the premises. In such circumstances, I dispose of this writ petition with the observation that it will be open to the petitioner to possess and enjoy the land described in Ext.P1 sale deed and the building situate therein if there is no order passed by a competent civil court restraining him from taking possession of the land and the building. P.N.RAVINDRAN Judge vaa