IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN FRIDAY, THE 10TH JULY 2009 / 19TH ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 17035 of 2009(Y) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- WAYANAD BHOO SAMRAKSHANA SAMITHI REGISTER NO. 398/2002, THRIKKEPATTA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, G. SANJEEVAN, AGED 63 YEARS, S/O. LATE GRIYAPPAN, RESIDING AT PULARI NIVAS, P.O. THRIKKEPATTA, WAYANAD DIST-22. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.JOSE RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. M/S HARRISON MALAYALAM LTD., WILLINGTON ISLAND, KOCHI-1. 3. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, WAYANAD DIST, HEAD QUARTERS, KALEPTTA, KALPETTA P.O., 4. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KALEPTTA, KALPETTA P.O., WAYANAD DIST, 5. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MEPPADY POLICE STATION, WAYANAD DIST, BY ADV. SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR FOR R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.P.A.SALIM. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMAN & P.BHAVADASAN, JJ. ------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 17035 of 2009 ------------------------------- Dated this the 10th July, 2009 J U D G M E N T Raman, J. Petitioner is a Samithi named as Wayanad Bhoo Samrakshana Samithi, registered under the Travancore Cochin Literary Scientific and Charitable Societies Registration Act, 1955. It is claimed that there are about 1600 members in the society. The main object of the society is to protect the rights of small holders of land in the Wayanad District. They seek a writ of mandamus commanding the third respondent, Superintendent of Police, Wayanad, and other police officials arrayed as parties, not to interfere with the agricultural cultivation and farming conducted by the members of the petitioner society. 2. We have heard both sides. 3. The second respondent has filed a detailed counter affidavit. According to them, the averments made in the W.P.(C) No.17035/2009 2 writ petition are not true and no materials are produced to show that any one of the members is in possession of the land. It is further stated that it is the land belonging to the second respondent and the members of the petitioner society is attempting to trespass into the property of the company. 4. The learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the State would submit that on the basis of the complaint made by the second respondent, a Crime has been registered as Crime No.26 of 2009, for the offences punishable under Section 447 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. It is submitted that nothing was proceeded thereafter. Therefore, the allegation of harassment is denied. It is also submitted that since the dispute relates to possession of immovable property, unless there is a case of criminal trespass, the police will not interfere. 5. Admittedly, proceedings are pending before the Land Board as also before the Munsiff Court. Therefore, the dispute regarding the possession will be adjudicated by the appropriate forum. It is only thereafter that a right will W.P.(C) No.17035/2009 3 crystallise for launching any action. Under the guise of possession of property, the petitioner also cannot trespass into the property belonging to the second respondent. At the same time, if the members of the petitioner society are in lawful possession of the property, they cannot also be evicted except in accordance with law. But, being a disputed question of fact, this Court is not an appropriate forum to adjudicate and enter finding on merits, and the matter requires oral and documentary evidence. Being purely a civil dispute, we relegate the parties to approach the same forum where the matter is pending, for interim relief, if any. Police, in such circumstances, as stated by the learned Government Pleader, need only watch the situation, so that dispute may not develop into any law and order situation. Subject to the observations stated above, the writ petition is closed. P.R.RAMAN, JUDGE P.BHAVADASAN , JUDGE. nj.