IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM MONDAY, THE 18TH JULY 2011 / 27TH ASHADHA 1933 WP(C).No. 18221 of 2011(C) -------------------------- PETITIONER ------------------ RAJENDRAN, S/O.THANGAVELU, AGED 43, DAS BHAVAN, MATTUPETTIKARA, PERIYAR VILLAGE, PEERUMEDU, IDUKKI. BY ADVS. SRI.SABU S.KALLARAMOOLA SRI.S.NIDHEESH RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, IDUKKI. 2. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KUMILY. 685 509 3. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VANDIPERIYAR POLICE STATION.685533 4. CHANDRAMOHAN, GROUP MANAGER, M/S RAM BAHADUR THAKUR LTD., THANGAMALA ESTATE BUNGALOW, VANDIPERIYAR. 5. MADHU, ASSISTANT MANAGER, M/S RAM BAHADUR THAKUR LTD., THANGAMALA ESTATE BUNGALOW, VANDIPERIYAR.685533 6. MANISHMOHAN SHARMA, DIRECTOR, M/S.RAM BAHADUR THAKUR TLD., THANGUR HOUSE, 1/15 DUTCH CEMENTERY ROAD, FORT COCHIN.682001 R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.CHARISMA R4 TO R6 BY ADVS. SRI.DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN SRI.K.M.ANEESH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 18221 of 2011(C) ------------------------------------- APPENDIX --------------- PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS ------------------------------------- EXT.P1. COPY OF THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN PETITIONER AND 6TH RESPONDENT EXT.P2. COPY OF THE PLAINT EXT.P3. COPY OF THE INJUNCTION ORDER EXT.P3(A). COPIES OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS EXT.P4. CPY F THE CMPLAINT. EXT.P5. COPY OF THE FIR. XT.P6. COPY F THE CMPLAINT TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P7. COPY OF THE DOCUMENT. EXT.P8. COPY OF THE COMMISSION REPORT AND SKETCH. EXT.P9. COPIES OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS. EXT.P10. COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF THE VILLAGE OFFICER. EXT.P11. COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH EXT.P12. COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH. EXT.P13. COPY OF THE FIR. EXT.P14. COPY F THE I.A. IN O.S. 144/11 ON THE FILE OF MUNSIFF COURT, PEERUMEDE. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS -------------------------------------- EXT.R4(A). COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BEFORE VANDIPERIYAR POLICE STATION DATED 2.6.2011 EXT.R4(B) COPY OF THE CMPLAINT FILED BEFORE JUDICIAL 1ST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-II, PEERUMEDU. EXT.R4(C). COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S. NO.148/2011 BEFRE THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, PEERUMEDU. EXT.4(D). COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, PEERUMEDU. EXT.R4(E). COPY F THE FIR. EXT.R4(F). PHOTOGRAPHS. / TRUE COPY / P.A. TO JUDGE VK PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.18221 of 2011 ------------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of July, 2011. J U D G M E N T C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. This writ petition is filed seeking police protection to the life and person of the petitioner against the alleged, threat, violence and intimidation caused by respondents 4 and 5, their men and agents. Claim of the petitioner is that he is in possession of 2 Acres of land which he had purchased from M/s.Ram Bahadur Thakur Ltd., by virtue of Ext.P1 agreement. It is contended that the said property is planted with coffee and pepper and other agricultural produces. According to the petitioner, the respondents 4 and 5 are the Manager and Asst. Manager of the above said company and a portion of the estate of M/s.Ram Bahadur Thakur Ltd. has been sold to another company by name M/s.Bethel Plantations Pvt. Ltd. It is alleged that respondents 4 and 5 are trespassing into the property in the 2 W.P.(C) No.18221 of 2011 possession of the petitioner and is destroying the boundaries and intimidating the workers of the petitioner. Admittedly, there is a civil suit filed by the petitioner against M/s.Bethel Plantations Pvt. Ltd. seeking injunction against the apprehended trespass and it is stated that an interim injunction has already been granted by the Munsiff's Court, Peerumedu, as per Ext.P3. It is the case of the petitioner that respondents 4 and 5 are violating the injunction order and is causing threat to the life of the petitioner. It is further stated that a private complaint was moved by the petitioner against respondents 4 and 5 alleging commission of various offences punishable under the Indian Penal Code and on the basis of reference made by the Magistrate court, a crime has already been registered as per Ext.P5 against respondents 4 and 5. Against the alleged threat and intimidation, the petitioner had submitted complaint before the 3rd respondent as evidenced from Ext.P6. But no effective protection has been given. Hence the writ petition. 3 W.P.(C) No.18221 of 2011 2. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondents 4 to 6, the entire allegations were refuted. According to the said respondents, Ext.P1 is a sham document created by the petitioner with an oblique motive of trespassing into the property belonging to M/s.Ram Bahadur Thakur Ltd. and it is alleged that the petitioner, under the guise of the order of interim injunction obtained against M/s.Bethel Plantations Pvt. Ltd., is attempting to cause assault on the workers of the estate belonging to M/s.Ram Bahadur Thakur Ltd. It is alleged that, in fact the petitioner is making an attempt to trespass into the estate of the above said company about which various complaints were lodged before the police authorities and also a complaint before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Peerumedu, as evidenced from Exts.R4(a) and R4(b). It is further mentioned that against the attempt of the writ petitioner to trespass into the estate belonging to the above said company, another civil case has been filed as 4 W.P.(C) No.18221 of 2011 O.S.No.148 of 2011 seeking decree of permanent prohibitory injunction and an interim order has been issued on that suit, as evidenced from Ext.R4(d). According to respondents 4 to 6, the petitioner had attempted trespass into the property and with respect to such illegal activity a case has been registered against the petitioner as per Ext.R4(e) FIR. 3. Smt.Charisma learned Government Pleader on the basis of instructions received from the police officials submitted that, there exists civil cases with respect to the property and in fact the disputed land in question is part of property already surrendered by M/s.Ram Bahadur Thakur Ltd. to the Government under the provisions of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. It is further conceded that there were physical assault by the petitioner on the workers of the company for which Crime No.194 of 2011 is registered under Sections 447 and 427 of IPC against the petitioner. It is further submitted that even after the interim order issued 5 W.P.(C) No.18221 of 2011 by this Court, there was an assault on the Group Manager of M/s.Ram Bahadur Thakur Ltd. for which Crime No.232 of 2011 was registered under sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 294 D, 324 r/w 149 IPC. It is also mentioned that the petitioner was admitted at the Communal Health Center, Vandiperiyar, raising an allegation of assault caused by the staff of the above said company and on the basis of his statement another case as crime No.233 of 2011 was registered for the offence punishable under Sections 341, 323 and 34 of IPC. But it is stated that on investigation it was revealed that the crime registered on the basis of the statement of the petitioner was false. 4. From the facts and circumstances as narrated above, it is evident that there exists dispute between the petitioner and respondents 4 to 6 pertaining to right and title over a portion of land which forms a part of an estate having larger extent. It is evident that, two civil suits are pending with respect to the dispute. It is also evident that 6 W.P.(C) No.18221 of 2011 the land in question has been surrendered under the Land Reforms Act. Under the above mentioned circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that any order of police protection with respect to trespass or possession on the land will create confusion and cause prejudice to adjudication of the civil suits and also to the rights and claims of both the parties. It is also evident that there was attempt of assault in between the parties, for which the police authorities have taken appropriate action and registered cases. Under such circumstances, any order of police protection for the life and person of the petitioner will also cause prejudice to the claims and rights on respondents 4 to 6. However, both sides are not entitled to take law into their own hands and to create any threat to peaceful law and order situation. Respondents 1 to 3 are bound to take adequate steps to see that no violent situation is created and there is no breach of law in the locality. The parties are at liberty to seek appropriate reliefs from the competent civil court where the 7 W.P.(C) No.18221 of 2011 dispute is pending. 5. In the result, while dismissing this writ petition, we direct respondents 1 to 3 to ensure steps required to keep peaceful atmosphere and law and order situation in control in the area concerned. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE ami/