IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH JULY 2011 / 15TH ASHADHA 1933 WP(C).No. 14570 of 2011(U) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- RARUKUTTY, S/O.AYYAPPAN, MATHILANCHERY HOUSE, MUTTIL P.O., WAYANAD. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.JYOTHI PRASAD. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, WAYANAD AT KALPETTA-673 121. 2. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KALPETTA-673 121. 3. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KALPETTA-673 121. 4. M.SAIKRISHNAN, S/O.RARUKUTTY, NEAR PENSION BHAVAN, KALPETTA NORTH P.O., PIN-673 122, WAYANAD DISTRICT. 5. SAJEEVAN, S/O.RARUKUTTY, NEAR PENSION BHAVAN, KALPETTA NORTH P.O., PIN-673 122, WAYANAD DISTRICT. 6. PADMINI, W/O.RARUKUTTY, NEAR PENSION BHAVAN, KALPETTA NORTH P.O., PIN-673 122, WAYANAD DISTRICT. R1 TO R3 BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER SRI. T.K. VIPINDAS, R4 TO R6 BY ADV. SRI.MATHEW KURIAKOSE. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/07/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.14570/2011-U: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION REPORT DTD. 08/04/11. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3 DTD 27/04/11. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY KALPETTA MUNICIPALITY DTD. 30/03/11. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE ASSIGNMENT DEED IN FAVOR OF THE RESPONDENTS 4 TO 6 EXECUTED BY THE PETITIONER DTD. 15/04/96. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY KALPETTA MUNICIPALITY DTD. 16/05/11. EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY KALPETTA MUNICIPALITY DTD. 16/05/11. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. Prv. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE & P.BHAVADASAN, JJ. -------------------------------------------------------- WP(C) No.14570 of 2011-U -------------------------------------------------------- Dated this, the 6th day of July 2011 Judgment Pius.C.Kuriakose, J. The petitioner, aged 71 seeks protection for his life and property from respondents 4 and 5, his own sons and respondent 6, his wife. According to the petitioner, he was the absolute owner in possession of 43.17 Ares of land and he put up a residential house in a portion of that property in the name of his wife and the family was residing together in that house. The house and the site of the house was conveyed by him under Ext.P4 to the 6th respondent wife. Thereafter, for the purpose of deriving income, he put up four line buildings in another portion of the property and he relies on Ext.P3 certificate issued by the Kalpetta Municipality to show that he is the owner of the line buildings. According to him, those line buildings were let out to tenants. The petitioner complains that he was WPC 14570/11 2 forcibly chucked out of the residential building situated on the property covered by Ext.P4 assignment deed and he had to stay in a rented house situated far away from Ext.P4 property. He states that recently, three of the tenants, who were in occupation of the line buildings on the property vacated. As the buildings vacated by them needed repairs, he went over to the property for attending to the repairs of those buildings. At that time, he was manhandled by respondents 4 to 6 and he had to be admitted in a hospital as he sustained serious injuries due to assault by respondents 4 to 6. He complains that respondents 4 to 6 are preventing him from enjoying his propert,y and according to him, there is a threat to his life also from respondents 4 to 6. He even states that respondents 4 and 5 are acting in unison with the Sand Mafia of the locality and are even trying to cause danger to his life in a road accident. According to him, even when he went over to the property for considering whether he can have a peaceful life in one of the line buildings, respondents 4 to 6 WPC 14570/11 3 prevented his entry into the property. He has filed this writ petition, seeking the following reliefs : “i. to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 3 to give adequate police protection to the petitioner for his life and his property. 'ii. to issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ or direction to the respondents 1 to 3 to take appropriate action pursuant to Ext.P1.” 2. Respondents 4 to 6 have filed a counter affidavit wherein they deny the allegations in the writ petition, directed against them. According to the counter affidavit, on the basis of a false complaint filed by the petitioner who attacked the 6th respondent along with one Suresh, his friend, the police has registered Ext.P1 F.I.R. They submit that later, on the basis of a private complaint filed by the 6th respondent, forwarded by the learned Magistrate, under S.156(3) Cr.P.C., the police have registered Crime No.367/11 against the petitioner and his friend Suresh for offences punishable under Ss.323, 324, WPC 14570/11 4 341, 354, 452 and 506 r/w S.34 I.P.C. They further submit that the wife has already moved the Chief Judicial Magistrate against the petitioner under the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and the above case is pending consideration before the learned Magistrate. They conclude the counter affidavit by stating as follows : “It is submitted that as already mentioned, we have no intention to cause threat to the life of the petitioner. We did not do any act of threat also. However, we have no objection in this Hon'ble Court granting protection to the life of the petitioner, provided under the guise of that order, petitioner shall not take over possession of the above mentioned property or cause any threat to our life and property.” To the above counter affidavit, the petitioner has filed a reply affidavit, reiterating the averments in the writ petition and producing documents Exts.P3 to P6. 3. We have heard the submissions of Sri.P.V.Jyothi Prasad, learned counsel for the appellant, WPC 14570/11 5 Sri.Mathew Kuriakose appearing for respondents 4 to 6 and Smt.Charisma, learned Government Pleader. The learned Government Pleader, on the basis of the instructions, submits that there is a dispute between the petitioner and respondents 4 to 6 over properties including the line buildings and the main building situated on 43.17 Ares of land in Survey No.518/1C of Kalpetta village. The petitioner does not presently have physical possession of any portion of the above property. Ext.P1 crime as well as Crime No.367/11 are the fallouts of such disputes. The parties have been advised to seek resolution of the disputes involving the properties through the process of the civil court. At the moment, there is no threat to the life of the petitioner, who is residing elsewhere. If instances of real threat to the life of the petitioner are reported, the police will not hesitate to render necessary protection. 4. Sri.Jyothi Prasad, per contra, submitted that the petitioner, who is an old man, reaching the evening period of his life, is the owner of 43.17 Ares of land covered WPC 14570/11 6 by Ext.P4 assignment deed. Three of the line buildings situated on the land belonging to him, under his own ownership are presently vacant. He should be permitted to reside in one of those line buildings. He is presently compelled to live in a rented building. There is a real threat to his life and also to his properties. 5. Mr.Mathew Kuriakose, learned counsel appearing for the party respondents submitted that though it is true that the title of the line buildings and a portion of the land remains with the petitioner, the fact is that the petitioner is out of possession. The petitioner's intention is to dispossess respondents 4 to 6 on the strength of the police protection order to be issued by this court. The learned counsel also submitted that there is no threat from respondents 4 to 6 to the life of the petitioner. Those respondents have no objection in issuing protection to the petitioner's life on condition that on the strength of the protection order, the petitioner will not come and dispossess respondents 4 to 6. WPC 14570/11 7 6. Having considered the submissions addressed at the Bar, we feel that the present situation seems to be that the petitioner, though he is the owner of the line buildings constructed on the property as well as a substantial portion of the land, does not have physical control over the properties. The situation may be hard for the petitioner. But, the question is whether this court can grant police protection to the petitioner for enjoying the property which belongs to him. The above question can be answered only in the negative as respondents 4 to 6 are asserting possession over the properties. The petitioner's remedy for reddressal of his grievance lies before a competent civil court. Coming to the threat against the life of the petitioner also, we feel that there can be a real threat to his life, only if he attempts to take possession of the property belonging to him by himself. We feel, as we have already indicated, the petitioner may have to seek recourse to the process of the civil court for enjoying of his properties. As such, we do not find any threat to the WPC 14570/11 8 petitioner's life. We record the undertaking given by the party respondents that they have no intention to cause any threat to the life of the petitioner. We dispose of this writ petition, relegating the petitioner to the process of the civil court and directing the third respondent Sub Inspector of Police to take immediate action if and when complaints are received from the petitioner of real threat to his life from respondents 4 to 6 or for that matter, any other persons. 7. After we pronounced the order, Sri.Jyothi Prasad, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that in execution of the decree passed in favour of the petitioner, the fourth line building which was under the possession of a tenant, is about to be delivered to the petitioner. He prayed that at least in respect of that building, an order may be passed directing the police to ensure that the petitioner is able to reside in that building. We permit the petitioner to move the execution court for appropriate directions in that regard. We are sure that the execution court, with notice to respondents 4 to 6, will issue WPC 14570/11 9 appropriate effective orders, granting reliefs to the petitioner. The execution court will ensure that the petitioner enjoys the fruits of the decree secured by him. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE P.BHAVADASAN, JUDGE sta WPC 14570/11 10