IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI TUESDAY, THE 3RD JUNE 2008 / 13TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 11736 of 2008(V) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ DEENA PANICKER, WIDOW OF LATE K.VASAVA PANICKER, POONTHARA KIZHAKKINEZHATHU THANNEERMUKKOM, CHERTHALA. BY ADV. SRI.K.KARTHIKEYA PANICKER SMT.DAYA K. PANICKER RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE VAIKOM, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VAIKOM KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 3. K.N. MANOHARAN, S/O.NANU CHENAPPADI VEEDU, KUDAVECHOOR KARA VECHOOR VILLAGE, VAIKOM. 4. BHASKARAN, S/O.VAVAV IKKARAPARAMBU HOUSE, KUDAVECHOOR KARA VECHOOR VILLAGE, VAIKOM. BY ADV. DR.K.P.SATHEESAN FOR R3 & 4 R3 .K.K.GOPINATHAN NAIR FOR R3 & 4 SRI.M.R.JAYAPRASAD FOR R3 & 4 SRI.P.MOHANDAS (ERNAKULAM) FOR R3 & 4 SR.GP MR.BENJAMIN PAUL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC 11736/08 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS : EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF CERTIFICATE NO.C4/1157/07/K.DIS. DATED 16.5.2007 ISSUED BY THE TAHSILDAR, CHERTHALA EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE PATTAYAM NO.L.82/89(B4,5575/86)DT.11.4.1990 ISSUED BY THE TAHSILDAR, VAIKOM EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DT.22.4.2004 EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN IA NO.1940/06 IN OS NO.439/06 DT.20.6.07 OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, VAIKOM EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN IA NO.1636/07 IN AS 371/07 OF DISTRICT COURT, KOTTAYAM EXT.P6 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DT.16.2.2008 BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT EXT.R3(a) TRUE COPY OF THE SKETCH PREPARED BY THIS RESPONDENT SHOWING THE LIE OF THE PROPERTY EXT.R3(b) TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT IN FAVOUR OF THE THIRD RESPONDENT DT.16.11.2000 TRUE COPY PA TO JUDGE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Writ Petition (C) No.11736 of 2008-V -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Judgment Balakrishnan Nair, J. The petitioner and her children are the owners of one acre and 54.5 cents of land in Survey No.474/1 of Vechur village in Vaikom taluk. Originally, the said property belonged to her husband. When respondents 3 and 4 tried to trespass into the said property, her husband moved the civil court by filing OS No.439/06, seeking an injunction, restraining them from trespassing into the property. In the said suit, there was an interim injunction in favour of the complainant, a copy of which is produced as Ext.P4. Later, the suit was dismissed. In the meantime, the petitioner's husband died. Thereafter, the petitioner and her children moved the District Court by filing AS No.371/07. The District Court granted an interim injunction, restraining respondents 3 and 4 from trespassing into the plaint scheduled property and committing waste there. Ext.P5 is the interim order issued by the District Court While so, when the petitioner went to the property to do agricultural operations on 11.02.2008, respondents 3 and 4 trespassed into the property and obstructed the petitioner and her workmen from doing any agricultural operations there. They WPC 11736/08 2 threatened the petitioner that she will not be allowed to do any agricultural operations or pluck coconuts from the said land. They also threatened that they will trespass into a portion of the property and do agricultural operations there. In view of the above actions of respondents 3 and 4, the petitioner submitted Ext.P6 representation before the SI of Police, praying to take appropriate action against the said respondents. When the police did not take any effective action, this Writ Petition was filed, seeking the following reliefs : “a) issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction to respondents 1 and 2 to provide adequate and sufficient protection to the life and property of the petitioner, her children and the workers against respondents 3 and 4 and their associates to peacefully enjoy the property covered by Ext.P2 patta. b) declare that in the facts and circumstances, the petitioner and her children are eligible and entitled to an order directing the respondents 1 and 2 to provide adequate and sufficient protection to the life and properties of the petitioner and her children against respondents 3 and 4 and their associates.” WPC 11736/08 3 2. Respondents 3 and 4 have filed a counter affidavit in which they submit that as per Ext.R3(b) agreement, the petitioner's husband agreed to sell 30 cents of land out of the aforementioned property to them. On executing the agreement and receiving part of the sale consideration, they were put in possession of the property also, it is submitted. Eversince the execution of the agreement in the year 2000, they are in possession of a portion of the said property having 30 cents and they are doing agricultural operations there. Accepting the contentions of the party respondents, the suit was dismissed by the Munsiff's court. Now, the interim order obtained from the appellate court is an ex parte interim order. The respondents submit, the petitioner has no right to get police protection. The petitioner has filed a reply affidavit, denying the allegations of the third respondent and also the execution of Ext.R3(b) agreement. According to her, in violation of the injunction of the civil court, the party respondents have trespassed into the property and committed waste there. This, the respondents 3 and 4 have admitted in their counter affidavit, it is pointed out. 3. The learned Government Pleader, upon instruction submitted that the parties were summoned to the police station and they were asked to maintain status quo in view of the civil court's order. 4. The main grievance of the petitioner is that respondents 3 and 4 are acting in violation of Ext.P5 interim injunction of the District Court. If the respondents in that WPC 11736/08 4 order are violating the injunction order, the remedy of the petitioner is to move the competent court. The civil court has powers to address the police also, if necessary to enforce its orders. Going by Ext.P6, we find there is no threat to the life of the petitioner or her children. Even if there is any threat to their life, it is only when she goes to the disputed property to assert her rights over the property. Having regard to the facts of the case, the remedy of the petitioner lies not before the police station, but before the competent civil court. The police cannot be conferred power or jurisdiction to decide whether the injunction order is violated and take consequential action based on their finding. In the result, the Writ Petition fails and it is dismissed without prejudice to the contentions of the petitioner and her right to move the competent civil court for appropriate reliefs. It is clarified that the appellate court or any other court hearing the matter will not be bound by the observations made herein above. In other words, they will be free to decide the matter pending before them, uninfluenced by this judgment. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR,JUDGE 03.06.2008 M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE sta WPC 11736/08 5 WPC 11736/08 6