IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH APRIL 2008 / 20TH CHAITHRA 1930 WP(C).No. 10838 of 2008(M) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------------- K.M.ABDUL KALAM,S/O.K.K.MOHAMMED MOIDEEN, AGED 45 YEARS, KAKKAD HOUSE, C.P.UMMER ROAD, PULLEPPADY, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-35. BY ADV. SMT.C.G.BINDU SMT.C.G.AJITHA RESPONDENTS: ------------------------- 1. SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CENTRAL POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM. 2. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CENTRAL POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM. 3. C.P.I-ML, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, OFFICE OF C.P.I-ML, MEENAKSHI BUILDING, CHURCH LAND ROAD, OPPOSITE MEDICAL TRUST HOSPITAL, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-16. 4. P.C.SURENDRAN, S/O.CHANDRASEKHARAN, PILEDIPPADAM, CITIZEN ROAD, AYYAPPANKAVU, COCHIN-18-ACTIVIST OF 1ST RESPONDENT CPI-ML. 5. RAVEENDRAN, S/O.CHANDRASEKHARAN, PAINADYPADATHU HOUSE, CITIZEN ROAD, COCHIN-18. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. SALIM.P.A. BY ADV. SRI.K.S.MADHUSOODANAN SRI.T.V.JAYAKUMAR NAMBOODIRI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/04/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.10838/2008 M APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF SALE DEED DTD. 12/11/2003. EXT.P2: COPY OF TAX PAID RECEIPT DTD. 13/11/2007. EXT.P3: COPY OF POSSESSION CERTIFICATE DTD. 7/11/2007. EXT.P4: COPY OF PURCHASE CERTIFICATE ISSUED FROM ERNAKULAM LAND TRIBUNAL AT POONITHURA IN O.A.41/89 DTD. 9/09/1997. EXT.P5: COPY OF PHOTOGRAPH OF ONE SUCH POSTER WITH ITS NEGATIVE. EXT.P6: COPY OF COMPLAINT FILED BY PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DTD. 03/03/2008. EXT.P7: COPY OF JUDGMENT IN O.S.629/2002 DTD. 2/11/2006 OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, ERNAKULAM. EXT.P8: COPY OF CAVEAT PETITION ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT DTD. 11/03/2008. EXT.P9: COPY OF PLAINT IN O.S.629/02. EXT.P10: COPY OF EXTRACT OF THE COMMISSION REPORT OF THE ADVOCATE COMMISSION. EXT.P11: COPY OF THE ADJOURNMENT APPLICATION I.A.10175/06. EXT.P12: COPY OF I.A.NO.10174/06. EXT.P13: COPY OF COUNTER AFFIDAVIT FILED BY MY VENDOR TO DELAY PETITION IN A.A.136/03. EXT.P14: COPY OF SKETCH PREPARED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, ERNAKULAM WITH REGARD TO THIS PROPERTY ON 29/08/2001. EXT.P15: COPY OF BASIC TAX PAID RECEIPT DTD. 27/09/2001. EXT.P16: COPY OF DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED BY CORPORATION OF COCHIN TO KUNJAN SEETHA FOR THE ARREARS OF PROPERTY TAX. Kss ..2/- ...2.... WPC.NO.10838/2008 M EXT.P17: COPY OF TAX PAID RECEIPT DTD. 17/11/93 ISSUED BY THE CORPORATION OF COCHIN. EXT.P18: COPY OF NOTICE DTD. 1/7/97 OF CORPORATION OF COCHIN ISSUED TO KUNJAN SEETHA. EXT.P19: COPY OF MEMO DTD. 14/05/2002 ISSUED BY THE CORPORATION OF COCHIN. EXT.P19(A): COPY OF CERTIFICATE DTD. 2/07/2002. EXT.P20: COPY OF PROCEEDINGS DTD. 14/08/2001 OF THE LAND TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM. EXT.P21: COPY OF O.A.41/89 FILED BEFORE THE LAND TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM. 5TH RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: EXT.R5(A): COPY OF THE ORDER IN O.A.3231/76 DTD. 6/08/76 OF THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LR) NO.1 ERNAKULAM. EXT.R5(B): COPY OF THE PURCHASE CERTIFICATE DTD. 7/2/77. EXT.R5(C): COPY OF THE SKETCH. EXT.R5(D): COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DTD. 3/05/05. EXT.R5(E): COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE TALUK SURVEYOR DTD. 26/07/06. EXT.R5(F): COPY OF THE COMPLAINT TO THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CENTRAL POLICE STATION, ON 4/3/08 SEEKING POLICE PROTECTION. EXT.R5(G):COPY OF THE RECEIPT. EXT.R5(H): COPY OF THE PETITION TO THE RDO, FORT KOCHI, ON 4/3/08 AND FORWARDED FOR ENQUIRY AND URGENT REPORT. /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR AND P.N. RAVINDRAN, JJ. ----------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 10838 OF 2008 ----------------------------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of April, 2008 JUDGMENT BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, J. The Petitioner had purchased three cents of land in Survey No. 396 of Elamkulam Village near Ambedkar Stadium at Ernakulam. Ext.P1 is the sale deed. Pursuant to that, petitioner got the mutation carried out. He paid the land tax as evident from Ext.P2. He had also got Ext.P3 possession certificate from the village officer. The petitioner purchased the land from Smt.Ambujakshi, who got the property from her mother, Smt.Seetha. Ext.P4 is the Patta of the property granted in favour of Smt.Seetha. When the petitioner started construction of a building, respondents 4 and 5 supported by the 3rd respondent started causing obstruction. So, he filed a representation before the police claiming police protection, a copy of which is produced as Ext.P6. The petitioner also submits that the 5th respondent has WPC No. 10838 OF 2008 2 filed a suit against the vendor of the petitioner. The same was dismissed for default as per Ext.P7 judgment, dated 02.11.2006. So, the 5th respondent has no right over the property and the obstruction is unjustified, he submitted. The petitioner had got valid title over the property and he can construct a building there. Even after the filing of a representation, the police have failed to extend any protection and therefore this writ petition is filed seeking appropriate reliefs. 2. The 5th respondent has filed a counter affidavit stating that his father, V.A.Chandrasekharan, got Patta for a property(1.37 cents) as per Ext.R5(a) and R5(b) proceedings in Survey No.496 of Elamkulam Village. Mutation of that property has been carried out as is evident from Ext.R5(b). After the death of the 5th respondent's father, the said property devolved on the wife of Mr.Chandrasekharan, who is the mother of respondents 4 and 5. 3. The 5th respondent submits that even assuming his right is barred by Ext.P7 judgment, other legal heirs of Mr.Chandrasekaharan have got right over the property covered by WPC No. 10838 OF 2008 3 Exts.R5(a) and R5(b). He also points out that the Survey No. in Ext.P4 Patta was originally shown as 492/2 (9). Later by a proceedings dated 14.08.01, it was corrected as Survey No.496 only. By correcting the Survey number, now the vendor of the petitioner claims title over the property covered by Exts.R5(a) and R5(b) also. Therefore, the party respondents pray for the dismissal of the writ petition. 4. The petitioner has filed a reply affidavit and along with that, Ext.P9, which is a copy of the plaint in the suit filed by the 5th respondent, which was dismissed by Ext.P7, is produced. The petitioner also points out that against the grant of Patta to the predecessor in interest of the petitioner, an appeal was filed before the Appellate Authority, by the 5th respondent. But the same was dismissed. The petitioner has also produced Ext.P20 proceedings, by which the Survey number in Ext.P4 has been corrected. 5. Learned Government Pleader, upon instructions, submitted that what is involved is a civil dispute and therefore the WPC No. 10838 OF 2008 4 police cannot interfere in it. 6. A portion of the property belonging to the petitioner is claimed by respondents 4, 5 and 6. In view of Ext.P5, the 5th respondent may not be able to pursue his claim in relation to that property. But, prima facie the dispute raised by other legal heirs can be treated as a bona fide dispute. 7. Having regard to the facts of the case, we feel that the police cannot be asked to meddle in this dispute in favour of one party or the other. They have no power to render assistance to the party, which according to them, has a better title. It is the function of the Civil Court. The petitioner can move the civil court and try to get appropriate interim orders against those causing obstruction to the construction. If the interim orders granted are violated, he can get further directions from the Civil Court to the police to enforce the orders of that court. In this jurisdiction we are concerned with the failure of duty of the police in discharging its functions. Having regard to the nature of the dispute, the best thing the police can do is to keep WPC No. 10838 OF 2008 5 their hands off from the dispute. In view of the above position, the Writ Petition is dismissed without prejudice to the contention of the petitioner and his right to approach other forums. But, this will not affect the powers of the police to register and investigate a crime, if any cognizable offence is reported. 35 K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE P.N. RAVINDRAN, JUDGE. ttb WPC No. 10838 OF 2008 6 WPC No. 10838 OF 2008 7