IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.HARILAL FRIDAY, THE 9TH DECEMBER 2011 / 18TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 WP(C).No. 32292 of 2011(J) --------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------------- EASI, S/O.LONAN, PULICHUMACHAL HOUSE, MUNDAMVELI, KOCHI, ERNKAULAM. BY ADV. SRI.B.KRISHNA MANI RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, VIGILANCE AND ANTI-CORREPTION BUREAU, CENTRAL OFFICE, ERNAKUALAM RANGE,ERNAKULAM. 2. ST.LUIS CHURCH, MUNDAMVELI, REPRESENTED BY ITS VICAR, FR.ANTONY KOCHUKARAYIL, MUNDAMVELI,KOCHI,ERNAKULAM-682 507. R1 BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER SRI.VIJU ABRAHAM R2 BY ADV. SRI.P.K.GEORGE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs W.P.(C). NO. 32292/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE PLAINT OS NO.432/2010 BEFORE THE MUSNSIFF'S COURT, KOCHI DATED 15/12/2010. P2: COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT IN OS 432/2010 BEOFORE THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, KOCHI DATED 28/2/2011. P3: COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 03/09/2011. P4: COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 03/09/2011. P5: COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 03/09/2011. P6: COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 03/09/2011. P7: COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 03/09/2011. P8: COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 03/09/2011. P9: COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 03/09/2011. P10: COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 03/09/2011. P11: COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 03/09/2011. P12: COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 06/09/2011. P13: COPY OF THE PURCHASE CERTIFICATE DATED 16/09/1972. P14: COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR THE ISSUANCE OF A COMMISSION DATED 6/6/2011. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: R2(a):COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. R2(b):COPY OF THE DETAILS OBTAINED FROM THE CORPORATION OF COCHIN. R2(c):COPY OF THE STATEMENT FILE DBEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE. svs PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & K.HARILAL, JJ. ------------------------ W.P.(C) NO. 32292 OF 2011 ------------------------ Dated this the 9th day of December, 2011 JUDGMENT Pius C.Kuriakose, J. The petitioner has filed this writ petition accusing the first respondent and officers under him of harassment made at the instance of the 2nd respondent. 2. Sri. Viju Abraham learned senior Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the first respondent - the Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau, submitted that accusations of police harassment are without any basis. The 2nd respondent Church filed a complaint before the Government. The complaint was to the effect that the petitioner trespassed into the church property and put up a building. The petitioner was able to construct the building with connivance of the functionaries of the Corporation. On receiving that complaint, the Government sent the same to the Director of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau who made over the same to the first respondent, who is the local Superintendent of Police in the W.P.(C) No. 32292 /2011 2 Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau. During the course of the enquiry into the complaint, the site was inspected and was measured through the District Superintendent of Survey and Land Records. This action by the police cannot be branded as harassment. 3. B.Krishna Mani, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that intervention by the police in this manner at a time when a competent civil court is in seizin of the matter is sheer harassment. On behalf of the 2nd respondent, it was submitted that Ext.R2(a) complaint is the complaint submitted by the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent is entitled to have that complaint duly enquired. 4. Having considered the rival submissions addressed at the Boar, the only question, which we are called upon to decide in this writ petition, is whether the action of the first respondent and the officers under him in facilitating the measurement of the property in question as part of the enquiry into Ext.R2 (a) submitted by the 2nd respondent can be branded as harassment. We are of the view that the above question can be answered only in the negative. But, at the same time we make it W.P.(C) No. 32292 /2011 3 clear that it is for the competent Civil Court, which is in seizin of the matter, to decide the issue of title and possession finally. 5. At the same time, we find force in the submission of the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent that the subject matter of Ext.R2(a) complaint and the subject matter of the suit are different. Enquiry into Ext.R2(a) will be directed mostly in the context of the allegation of corruption. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE K.HARILAL, JUDGE. dpk W.P.(C) No. 32292 /2011 4