IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN WEDNESDAY, THE 19TH JANUARY 2011 / 29TH POUSHA 1932 WP(C).No. 3386 of 2010(W) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ 1. MOHAMMED ANWAR.T.K, S/O.MOIDEEN KUNHU, THONNAMKANDY HOUSE, PO ELETTIL, VIA KONDOTTY, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 2. NUSAIBA, W/O.YUSUF,CHANGARATH HOUSE, PO PANNIKOTTUR, VIA KODUVALLY, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.P.CHANDRASEKHAR SMT.UMA SRI.M.SASI SANKAR RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KALPETTA, WYANAD. 2. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VYTHIRI, WYNAD. 3. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VYTHIRI, WYANAD. 4. SANTHOSH KUMAR, S/O.BAHADUR, NETTARAMKUNNU HOUSE, THALIPUZHA, LAKKIDI PO, WYANAD. 5. GAGARIN, S/O.KUNHIKANNAN, BLOCK PANCHAYAT MEMBER, RAVIMANDIRAM, PO VYTHIRI, ALPETTA. 6. S.CHITHRAKUMAR, S/O.SUBAYYA, LOCAL COMMITTEE MEMBER OF CPI (M), GOVERNMENT HOSPITALKUNNU, VYTHIRI PO, WYANAD. R1 TO R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.T.K.VIPINDAS R4 TO R6 BY ADV. SRI.S.M.PRASANTH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.3386/2010 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 29.9.2007 IN OS. NO.256/04 OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, KALPETTA. P1(a):- COPY OF THE DECREE DTD. 29.9.2007 IN OS. 256/2004 OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, KALPETTA. P2:- COPY OF THE REGISTERED DEED NO.1124/1946 IN FAVOUR OF MOIDEEN KOYA & OTHERS. P3:- COPY OF THE PURCHASE CERTIFICATE DTD. 20.7.76 ISSUED BY LAND TRIBUNAL, KALPETTA. P4:- COPY OF THE COMMISSION REPORT DTD. 28.6.2007 IN OS. NO.256/2004 BEFORE THE MUNSIFF COURT, KALPETTA. P4(a):- COPY OF THE PLAN DTD. 22.6.07 IN OS. 256/2004 BEFORE THE MUNSIFF COURT KALPETTA. P5:- COPY OF THE WOUND CERTIFICTE DTD. 18.1.2010 ISUED BY LEO HOSPITAL, KALPETTA. P5(a):- COPY OF THE FIR NO.17/2010 OF VYTHIRI POLICE STATION. P6:- COPY OF THE PETITION DTD. 19.12.2009 SUBMITTED BY THE SHRI TSS.P.ABDULLA TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT. P7:- COPY OF THE PETITIONERS' PETITION DT. 20.1.2010 TO THE RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3. P8:- COPY OF THE RECEIPT DTD. 27.1.2010 ISSUED BY THE OFFICE OF THE IST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. P9:- PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE PROPERTY OF THE PETITIONERS. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS NIL. TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE tss R.BASANT & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. *********************** W.P(C) No.3386 of 2010 ***************************** Dated this the 19th day of January, 2011 JUDGMENT BASANT, J. The petitioners have come to this Court with this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with a prayer to direct respondents 1 to 3 to afford police protection for their life and property against the illegal, contumacious and violent acts of respondents 4 to 6. 2. According to the petitioners, they along with others are the owners of 85 cents of land in Kunnathidavida village of Wayanad district under Ext.P2 sale deed. According to the petitioners, the Government attempted to take over the land illegally and this obliged the petitioners and other owners to go before the Munsiff Court, Kalpetta seeking a decree for declaration and prohibitory injunction etc. against the State and its officials. That suit was decreed under Ext.P1. To the knowledge of the petitioners, the respondents have accepted and have not challenged the decision in Ext.P1. W.P(C) No.3386 of 2010 2 3. According to the petitioners, some persons of the locality including respondents 4 to 6 are taking law into their hands. They are trespassing into the property of the petitioners covered by Exts.P1 and P2. Because of their influence on the police, the police are not heeding to the complaints of the petitioners. It is, in these circumstances, that the petitioners were constrained to come to this Court. The petitioners apprehend that respondents 4 to 6 and people acting under them may indulge in gross acts of violence against the petitioners and their property. 4. Notice was ordered to all the respondents. Respondents 1 to 3 are represented by the learned Government Pleader. Respondents 4 to 6 are represented by their counsel. 5. The Bench which dealt with the matter on 17.02.2010 had issued interim directions, which we extract below: “There will be an interim direction to respondents 1 to 3 to afford adequate and sufficient police protection to the life of the petitioners and to the property of the petitioners covered by Exts.P1, P1(a), P4 and P4(a) as against respondents 4 to 6.” W.P(C) No.3386 of 2010 3 6. Initially such interim order was granted for a period of 10 days. It has been extended from time to time. The order remains in force even now. 7. Respondents 4 to 6 submit that the petitioners have no title or possession over the property in question. In a collusive venture, the petitioners aided and encouraged by the Government officials have secured Ext.P1 judgment and decree. The Government officials have not challenged Ext.P1. This had led to a lot of dissatisfaction and frustration among the local people. They had started agitations and demonstrations. According to respondents 4 to 6, the Government appears to be moving at last. An appeal against Ext.P1 along with an application for condonation of delay, it has been assured, will be filed. Respondents 4 to 6 have no intention to take law into their hands. They were expressing their dissatisfaction and frustration over the manner in which Ext.P1 judgment was secured by the petitioners and others in collusion with the Government officials. Respondents 4 to 6 have no intention of trespassing into the property now. But as public activists they want the Government and its officials to take necessary action to protect the property belonging to the Government, in respect of W.P(C) No.3386 of 2010 4 which, Ext.P1 judgment/decree has been collusively secured. The learned counsel for respondents 4 to 6 submits that they and other members of the local public will continue their vociferous demand to persuade the Government to take appropriate action. But they have no intention of taking law into their hands and trespassing into the property covered by Ext.P1 judgment. 8. The learned Government Pleader submits that the Government Pleader has no specific instructions about any appeal preferred against Ext.P1 judgment/decree. The necessary action in accordance with law shall be taken. The learned Government Pleader submits that the interim orders have been followed scrupulously and there can be no complaint or grievance now of inaction on the part of respondents 1 and 3. In these circumstances, the interim order issued on 17.02.2010 extracted above may be made absolute subject to the rider that such order shall not in any way fetter the rights of the State and its officials to challenge Ext.P1 and seek appropriate orders. 9. We are satisfied in the circumstances of the case that the ideal course to be followed is to confirm the interim order dated 17.02.2010 with the rider that this order shall not in any way fetter the rights of the State and its official to challenge W.P(C) No.3386 of 2010 5 Ext.P1 and enjoy relief if any obtained in such challenge. 10. This Writ Petition is, in these circumstances, allowed in part to the above extent. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE) rtr/