IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH MARCH 2011 / 25TH PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 3455 of 2011(F) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- 1. KAYALMADATHIL THITHEEMAKUTTY D/O.KAYALMADATHIL SAIDALIKUTTY ANANDAVOOR P.O.,THIRUNAVAYA, KUNDILANGADI, TIRUR TALUK,MALAPPURAM DISTRICT 2. KAYALMADATHIL BALKEES, D/O.KAYALMADATHIL SAIDALIKUTTY -DO- BY ADV. SRI.JAMSHEED HAFIZ RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA REP.BY THE SECRETARY TO THE DEPARTMENT OF HOME AFFAIRS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001 2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-673 001 3. THE CIRCLE INSEPCTOR OF POLICE TIRUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-673 001 4. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE KALPAKANCHERY POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-673 001 5. PATHEMU UMMA, W/O.AHAMMEDKUTTY KAYALMADATHIL HOUSE,ANANDAVOOR P.O.,PIN- 676 301 THIRUNAVAYA,KUNDILANGADI,TIRUR TALUK,MALAPPURAM 6. ILLIYAS, S/O.AHAMMEDKUTTY -DO- 7. NAUSHAD,S/O.AHAMMEDKUTTY -DO- R1 TO R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.T.K.VIPINDAS R5 TO R7 BY ADV. SRI.K.RAMACHANDRAN SRI.S.SREEDEV SMT.S.JAYASREE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts WP(C)NO.3455/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1 COPY OF THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE IN O.S.NO.47/96 BEFORE THE MUNSIFF COURT TIRUR DATED 31/03/1998. P2 COPY OF THE DECREE IN A.S.109/1998 BEFORE THE SUB COURT TIRUR DATED 15/01/2008. P3 COPY OF THE DELIVERY REPORT OF THE AMIN.E.P.297/2008 BEFORE THE MUNSIFF COURT TIRUR DATED 28/01/2010. P4 COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 6/12/2010. /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO.JUDGE sts R.BASANT & K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------------------------ W.P(C) NO: 3455 OF 2011F ----------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 16th March, 2011. JUDGMENT Basant, J. The petitioner has come to this Court seeking issue of directions to respondents 3 and 4 to afford protection to the petitioners for their property delivered to them under Ext.P3. 2. A litigation which has lived for a long period of time has at long last come to an end with Ext.P1 judgment. Ext.P2 is the decree passed. That decree was sought to be executed and Ext.P3 is the proceedings in execution in which the Amin had delivered the property to the petitioners herein. The short grievance of the petitioners is that notwithstanding the finality which the dispute has obtained by Exts.P1, P2 and P3 there is still unjustified interference by respondents 5 to 7 who are bound by the decree and the proceedings in execution. Police protection may be ordered to the petitioners to defend their possession of the property delivered to them under Ext.P3. This in short is the request of the petitioners. According to the petitioners respondents 5 to 7 who are powerful politically and WPC 3455/2011 2 financially are attempting to take law into their hands and interfere with the possession which the petitioner has secured under Exts.P1 to P3 at long last. 3. Respondents 5 to 7 have entered appearance through counsel. According to respondents 5 to 7 the allegations are totally false. They have no intention in any way to interfere with the possession of the property delivered to the petitioners under Exts.P1 to P3. The boot according to them is on the other leg. It is the petitioners who are not abiding by the decree and the delivery proceedings. In these circumstances there is absolutely no necessity to issue any directions under Art.226 of the Constitution. 4. Respondents 5 to 7 have a different grievance also to advance. According to them they want to put up a boundary for their property after delivery was effected under Ext.P3. That is being obstructed by respondents 1 and 2. That really is the bone of contention. In these circumstances this petition may be dismissed and directions may be issued in favour of respondents 5 to 7 to enable them to put up a fencing for their property. WPC 3455/2011 3 5. We have considered all the relevant inputs. There is no dispute that property delivered under Ext.P3 is in the possession of the petitioners and the petitioners are entitled to enjoy the same without any let or hindrance. Respondents 5 to 7 also accept the same. We are unable to accept that the petitioners have come to this Court unnecessarily without any threat to their possession. We are satisfied that the civil dispute having come to an end at long last and there being no dispute about the delivery effected under Ext.P3 directions must be issued to respondents 3 and 4 to afford protection to the petitioners to enjoy and possess their property delivered to them under Ext.P3 without any obstruction/objection from respondents 5 to 7. This petition can be allowed to the above extent. 6. Regarding the claim of respondents 5 to 7 we are not persuaded to agree that any directions need be issued in this petition filed by the petitioners. The option of respondents 5 to 7 is to seek appropriate relief from appropriate court, if they want to put up a boundary for their property. That right shall remain unfettered by the judgment in this petition. We are not WPC 3455/2011 4 persuaded to agree that any directions of police protection need be granted to respondents 5 to 7 in this petition filed by the petitioners. 7. In the result: a) This petition is allowed. b) Respondents 3 and 4 are directed to afford adequate and sufficient police protection to the petitioners for possession and enjoyment of the property delivered to them vide Ext.P3. R.BASANT Judge K. SURENDRA MOHAN Judge jj WPC 3455/2011 5