IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 6TH AUGUST 2010 / 15TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 23955 of 2010(T) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------------- PALLY, AGED 86 YEARS, DAUGHTER OF VELLANI THEVAR, RESIDING AT AGATHEDOM HOUSE, VADATTUPARA KARA, KUTTAMPUZHA VILLAGE, KOTHAMANGALAM. BY ADV. SRI.JOHN JOSEPH VETTIKAD SRI.C.JOSEPH JOHNY RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HOME DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ALUVA. 3. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, MUVATTUPUZHA. 4. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KOTHAMANGALAM. 5. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KUTTAMPUZHA. 6. VALSA, AGED 45 YEARS, WIFE OF PRABHAKARAN @ AYYAPPANKUTTY, RESIDING AT SHAPPUMPADITHAZHAM HOUSE, NECHOOR KARA.P.O., MANEED VILLAGE, PIRAVOM, PIN-686 664. 7. PRABHAKARAN @ AYYAPPANKUTTY, AGED 48 YEARS,RESIDING AT SHAPPUMPADITHAZHAM HOUSE NECHOOR KARA.P.O., MANEED VILLAGE, PIRAVOM, PIN-686 664. wpc23955/10 - 2 - 8. SAROJINI, AGED 50 YEARS, WIFE OF KUNJAPPAN, RESIDING AT PAREKKUDI (KULAVELIL) HOUSE, MALIPARA KARA P.O., KEERAMPARA VILLAGE, KOTHAMANGALAM-686 691. 9. MURALI, AGED 35 YEARS, SON OF SAROJINI, RESIDING AT PAREKKUDI (KULAVELIL) HOUSE, MALIPARA KARA P.O., KEERAMPARA VILLAGE, KOTHAMANGALAM-686 691. ADDL.10. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM. (ADDITIONAL 10TH RESPONDENT IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DT.3.8.10). ADV. SRI.BIJU ABRAHAM FOR R6 TO R9 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.SMITHA SUKUMARAN FOR R1TO R5 & R10. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPD23955/10 - 3 - APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 - TRUE COPY OF THE DELIVERY MAHAZAR DT.17.9.2003 IN E.P.132/2001. EXT.P2 - TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DT.5.3.2010 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT ALONG WITH THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT NO.58/10. EXT.P3 - TRUE COPY OF THE LEASE DEED DT.8.3.2010 EXECUTED BY THE PETITIONER IN FAVOUR OF JOY KURIAKOSE. EXT.P4 - TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DT.18.3.2010 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT ALONG WITH THE ACKNOLEDGMENT NO.1319/D/PTN/10 DT.18.3.2010. EXT.P5 - TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DT.31.3.2010 IN I.A.963/2010 IN O.S.133/2010 OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, MUVATTUPUZHA. EXT.P6 - TRUE COPY OF FIR NO.62/2010 OF KUTTAMPUZHA POLICE STATION. EXT.P7 - TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DT.20.7.2010 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: ANNEXURE-A TO THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE TAHSILDAR - TRUE COPY OF THE CASTE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE TAHSILDAR. -TRUE COPY- P.A.TO JUDGE. THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.23955 OF 2010 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of August, 2010 JUDGMENT Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J. 1.The petitioner, stated to be 86 years old, is, going by the admitted case of parties, a member of Scheduled Caste. She is a widow and is illiterate too. The fairly old woman is present in court today on her on will though there is no direction for her presence. 2.The writ petition is filed seeking a direction for police protection. The allegation is that her daughters who are respondents 6 and 8; the 7th respondent, husband of 6th respondent; and 9th respondent, the son of the 8th respondent are threatening her of loss to life and limb. In this premise, having regard to certain other materials also as discernible WPC.23955/10 2 from the records, we called for a report from the Tahsildar and the Deputy Superintendent of Police. Those statements are also on record. 3.Respondents 6 to 9 appeared through counsel. It is submitted by respondents 6 to 9 that the parties belong to Scheduled Caste, viz., Hindu-Pulaya. If that be so, what we have recorded in our earlier order dated 3.8.2010 that it is stated that the petitioner is a member of 'Scheduled Tribe' may be factually incorrect and the provisions of the Scheduled Tribes (Restriction of Transfer of Lands and Restoration of Alienated Lands) Rules, 1975 may not apply. 4.The private respondents, through their learned counsel, state that it is their case that the petitioner and her husband jointly occupied a piece of land, over which, assignment applications were pending and that assignment, though in favour of the petitioner, inures also to the benefits of the children of the petitioner and her late husband. This is disputed by the WPC.23955/10 3 petitioner. Whatever that be, the petitioner was allowed to recover possession. We have also on record the delivery kychit in the execution proceedings. The daughters thereby stand dispossessed by the mother. We, also, record the averment of the private respondents in the counter affidavit, without stating anything specifically, though we notice that certain allegations are made against the police officials also. 5.With the passage of time, the petitioner is shown to have executed a sale deed in favour of one Joy Kuriakose. He is not a party to this writ petition. The police made certain enquiry. That is reflected in the report. We do not rely on that. This is because the daughters have now filed a suit against Joy to set aside the sale deed. The said suit is still as one instituted by the daughters on behalf of the petitioner, though the learned counsel states that the petitioner had not instructed her daughters to file such a suit. WPC.23955/10 4 6.In the aforesaid scenario, one thing is certain. The private respondents cannot make any claim as against the admitted possession of the petitioner as of now. The petitioner now claims that she is a tenant under Joy, following the sale deed in favour of Joy. With that and taking note of the age of the petitioner, we order that police will afford adequate protection to the petitioner. The private respondents will keep away from the premises unless the petitioner wants their assistance to provide any care for her. This direction will not stand in the way of the parties getting appropriate orders, if necessary, from the civil court where the litigations are pending. We further direct that none of the observations in this judgment will bind the parties in any other proceedings. 7.We further order that in the light of the materials now available with the police, they will further look into whether any action is required in relation to the transactions under which the petitioner is alleged to have received certain funds, though it is stated that no such funds have even reached her. WPC.23955/10 5 However, such enquiry will be only under the control of the Deputy Superintendent of Police. The writ petition is ordered accordingly. Let a copy of this judgment be communicated to the District Collector also. THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, Judge. kkb.6/08.