IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN TUESDAY, THE 18TH JANUARY 2011 / 28TH POUSHA 1932 WP(C).No. 38431 of 2010(D) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------------------- SELVANOSE,S/O.DANIEL,AGED 73 YEARS, KOVILAVILA KULANGARAKKONAM,PALLICHAL VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADVS. SRI.J.S.AJITHKUMAR, SRI.S.ASWAKUMAR. RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, NEYYATTINKARA,PIN 695 301. 2. CITY POLICE COMMISSIONER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,PIN 695 001. 3. VASSAN KRISHNAN,S/O.KRISHNAN,AGED 51 BOBAN VILLA,KULANGARAKONAM, MURUKEL DESOM, PALLICHAL VILLAGE, 695 014. R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. T.K.VIPINDAS THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss R. BASANT & K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 38431 of 2010-D ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of January, 2011 JUDGMENT Basant,J. The petitioner has come to this Court seeking directions under Art.226 of the Constitution complaining that, at the instance of the 3rd respondent, the police officials, including respondents 1 and 2, are harassing the petitioner. 2. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner in detail. The crux of the dispute is about the possession and enjoyment of 2.5 acres of land in Pallichal Village which the petitioner claims to have acquired under a registered document dated 8/8/1959. There evidently are disputes between the petitioner and the 3rd respondent about the possession and rights of enjoyment in respect of that property. The 3rd respondent had already gone to the civil court and had obtained interim orders W.P.(C) No. 38431 of 2010 -: 2 :- in O.S.No.320/09. While that suit was pending, interim orders remained in force. That suit was dismissed on 10/12/09. It was dismissed for default. It is conceded that an application for restoration is filed and the same is pending. According to the petitioner, he has an absolute possession and enjoyment. He has rights over the property. The 3rd respondent is attempting unnecessarily to interfere with his rights. Respondents 1 and 2 and other police officials are harassing the petitioner at the instance of the 3rd respondent. 3. Notice was ordered to the respondents. The learned Government Pleader has taken instructions. The learned Government Pleader submits that the police officials are not in any way getting involved in the disputes between the petitioner and the 3rd respondent about their rights of possession and enjoyment of the property in question. It is for the parties to settle their disputes before the civil court. The petitioner had earlier approached the police for protection of his alleged possession. But at that time admittedly interim order in O.S. No.320/09 was in existence and the police could not and did not W.P.(C) No. 38431 of 2010 -: 3 :- make any protection available to the petitioner. The suit has now been dismissed. An application for restoration is pending. At this juncture the police do not want to get involved in the dispute or take sides. Parties will have to settle their disputes by seeking appropriate orders from the civil court. The learned Government Pleader, on behalf of respondents 1 and 2 and other police officials, undertakes that the police shall not intervene in the civil dispute between the petitioner and the 3rd respondent about their rights to possess and the actual possession of the property in question. The police shall abide by the orders of the civil court and shall give due effect to such orders of the civil court in accordance with law. The parties may be directed to seek appropriate orders from the civil court in the pending proceedings or in the proceedings to be initiated by either of them hereafter. If there be any law and order situation necessary, action in accordance with law shall be considered and taken. 4. We record the above submission of the learned Government Pleader on behalf of respondents 1 and 2. We do W.P.(C) No. 38431 of 2010 -: 4 :- not, in these circumstances, think it necessary to issue any specific directions to respondents 1 and 2 or any other police officials. We record the submission of the learned Government Pleader and hold that no further directions are necessary in this writ petition. 5. This writ petition is, in these circumstances, dismissed. Sd/- R. BASANT (Judge) Sd/- K. SURENDRA MOHAN (Judge) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge