IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN MONDAY, THE 24TH JANUARY 2011 / 4TH MAGHA 1932 WP(C).No. 1544 of 2011(P) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ SHOUKATHALI, S/O. MUHAMMED HANEEFA, PHEROSE MANZIL, MADAN NADA, THEKKADA VILLAGE, NEDUMANGAD TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.A.B.MOHANAKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE HOME SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 001. 2. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KADAKKAL, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN-691 536. 3. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KADAKKAL POLICE STATION, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN-691 536. 4. PICHAMUHAMMED RAWTHER @ PICHAMAMAD AMIYAN, S/O. RAWTHER, PALLIKKACHUVATTIL VEEDU, SATHYAMANGALAM, CHIRAVOOR MURI, CHITHARA VILLAGE, KADAKKAL P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN-691 536. 5. IRIFA BEEVI, W/O. PICHAMUHAMMED RAWTHER, PALLIKKACHUVATTIL VEEDU, SATHYAMANGALAM, CHIRAVOOR MURI, CHITHARA VILLAGE, KADAKKAL P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN-691 536. 6. S.NAVAS, S/O. SAINULABDEEN, RESIDING AT PALLATHU VEEDU, CHENGANNOOR VILLAGE, CHENGANNOOR P.O., PIN-689 121. R1 TO R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.T.K.VIPINDAS THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss R.BASANT & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. *********************** W.P(C) No.1544 of 2011 ***************************** Dated this the 24th day of January, 2011 JUDGMENT BASANT, J. The petitioner has come to this Court with this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issue of directions to respondents 1 to 3 to afford police protection to the petitioner for peaceful possession and enjoyment of his property. Respondents 4 to 6 are allegedly threatening such peaceful possession. The petition, as worded, is one for police protection. But there are averments which suggest that respondents 1 to 3/police officials are harassing the petitioner to help respondents 4 to 6. In these circumstances, there is parallelly a request to eliminate police harassment. 2. According to the petitioner, there is an agreement for sale. On the strength of that agreement for sale, he claims to be in possession of the property in question. Respondents 4 to 7 are bound by Ext.A1 agreement, it is contended. Though the petitioner is entitled to be in possession of the property under Ext.A1, his possession is being disturbed. He is not being permitted to take usufructs/ yields from the property. W.P(C) No.1544 of 2011 2 3. Admittedly the petitioner had gone to court with a suit for specific performance of the agreement. In that, he sought temporary injunction. Inter alia, prayer was made that the party respondents may be restrained from causing any obstruction to the petitioner's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the above property. 4. By Ext.P2 order, that prayer was turned down by the civil court. Though the petition was allowed in part in respect of some other relief, this particular relief was turned down. Admittedly the petitioner has come to this Court to challenge Ext.P2 order and an appeal is pending as F.A.O No.338 of 2010. Admittedly no interim orders have been secured in that F.A.O. 5. The petitioner, at this juncture, complains that police protection is not being afforded to him. Simultaneously and parallelly the allegation is raised that respondents 1 to 3 are helping respondents 4 to 6 and are harassing the petitioner. 6. The Bench which dealt with the matter on 17.01.2011 directed the learned Government Pleader to take instructions. The learned Government Pleader after taking instructions submits that the dispute is purely a civil dispute. Parties are already before the civil court. An interim application has already been rejected in part. Against such rejection in part, the W.P(C) No.1544 of 2011 3 petitioner is already before the appellate court. No interim order has been issued by the appellate court. The police shall not in any manner interfere with the civil dispute between the parties. The parties may be left to seek appropriate direction from the civil court before which the matter is pending, submits the learned Government Pleader. The learned Government Pleader further submits that the allegation of harassment on the part of the police officials against the petitioner at the instance of respondents 4 to 6 is denied by the police official respondents. 7. We have considered all the relevant circumstances. We have perused Ext.P2 order. Evidently the court below in Ext.P2 order has not accepted the case of the petitioner about the peaceful possession of the property under the agreement for sale. Having preferred an appeal against that order, the petitioner's attempt to run away with an order of police protection before the appellate court passes orders is certainly not justified. The petitioner must seek appropriate direction from the civil court about the manner of enjoyment of the property, pending disposal of the suit. 8. We accept the submission of the learned Government Pleader that police officials shall not intervene in the civil W.P(C) No.1544 of 2011 4 dispute and that the parties must seek orders from the civil court. We are satisfied that this petition for police protection only deserves to be dismissed. We do so with the above observations. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE) rtr/