IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN FRIDAY, THE 4TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 15TH MAGHA 1932 WP(C).No. 2655 of 2011(F) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- JOSHI GEORGE, S/O.VARKEY, AGED 40 YEARS, THACHILEDATHU, VADACODE P.O., VAZHAKULAM, MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.R.T.PRADEEP SRI.V.VIJULAL RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, OFFICE OF DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, THIRUVALLA. 2. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, OFFICE OF CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VADASSERIKKARA. 3. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VADASSERIKKARA POLICE STATION, VADASSERIKKARA. 4. THE MANAGER, MIDLAND RUBBER & PRODUCE CO.LTD., PERINAD ESTATE, PERINAD. 5. N.S.SABU, CONVENER, PERINAD ESTATE PLANTATION UNION, (CITU), PERINAD. R1 TO R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT.C.M.CHARISMA R5 BY ADV. SRI.V.SETHUNATH SRI.PRAKASH KESAVAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX IN WPC.2655/11 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF DEED OF LICENCE DATED 11.10.2010. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF REPORT. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED NIL TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF NOTICE DATED 21.1.2011. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: EXT.R5(a): TRUE COPY OF THE NEWS PAPER REPORTS APPEARED IN VARIOUS NEWS PAPERS. EXT.R5(b): TRUE COPIES OF THE POST MORTEM CERTIFICATES. /TRUE COPY/ THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & P.S.GOPINATHAN, JJ. ----------------------------------- W.P(C).No.2655 of 2011 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 4th day of February, 2011 JUDGMENT Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan,J. 1.Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the 5th respondent. 4th respondent is served. 2.The writ petitioner claims that he is a licensee under Midland Rubber and Produce Co. Ltd. The area in relation to which relief is sought is stated to be a rubber estate where re- plantation has been done and the new sapplings are just coming up. At this stage, the operator of the estate has permitted the petitioner to utilise the lands in between the sapplings for cultivating Pineapple, it is contended. This fact situation is not in dispute at the hands of the 5th respondent who contests, though it is stated that Midland Rubber and Produce Co. Ltd. is only a lessee under the true owner of the WPC.2655/11 2 land in question. We need not go into that because the 5th respondent admits that the petitioner has given Rs.40,000/- to the Manager of Midland Rubber and Produce Co. Ltd., as stated in the writ petition. The only controversy is that while the writ petitioner says that the said amount is given to compensate any loss, the 5th respondent would state that what is given is only an interim relief and the compensation would be around Rs.25,000/- per cow and that 13 cows have died. There is dispute on this aspect also. 3.In the aforesaid context, all that is required is to make the interim order dated 25.1.2011, directing respondents 1 to 3 to afford protection for the petitioner to carry out the work of agricultural operation without any obstruction from the 5th respondent, absolute on condition that the amount of Rs.40,000/- deposited by the petitioner with the 4th respondent is retained at that end and the said amount would not be released and final accounts between Midland Rubber and Produce Co. Ltd. and the petitioner would not be settled before WPC.2655/11 3 a decision is taken in relation to any compensation payable by the petitioner. The writ petition is ordered accordingly. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge. Sd/- P.S.GOPINATHAN, Judge. kkb.4/2.