IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS TUESDAY, THE 22ND JUNE 2010 / 1ST ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 14789 of 2010(W) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- ABDU HAJI, AGED 96 YEARS, THORAKKATTIL HOUSE, EDATHANATTUKARA P.O., MANARKKAD TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.RAJESH NAMBIAR RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MANARKKAD POLICE STATION. 2. ABDU, AGED 29, S/O.LATE MOIDEEN KUTTY, KARRATTUPARAMBIL, EDATHANATTUKKARA P.O., MANNARKKAD TALUK, PALAKKAD. 3. NAFISSA, W/O.LATE MOIDEEN KUTTY, KARRATTUPARAMBIL, EDATHANATTUKKARA P.O., MANNARKKAD TALUK, PALAKKAD. G.P. SHRI . T. K VIPINDAS ADV. SRI.P.K.MOHANAN(PALAKKAD) FOR R2,3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 14789 of 2010 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE LATEST BASIC TAX RECEIPT OF PAYMENT OF TAX ON 1 ACRE AND 61 CENTS IN SY. NO. 296/2A OF ALANALLUR VILLAGE III BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 23.4.2009 CANCELLING THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE GIVEN TO 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P4 : TRUE COPY OF THE INTIMATION UNDER RTI ACT. EXT.P5 ; TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE CANCELLING THE TAX RECEIPTS OBTAINED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P6 : TRUE COPY OF THE INJUNCTION ORDER IN IA. 809/2009. EXT.P7 : TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DT.5.5.10 OF THE SI OF POLICE, NATTUKKAL. EXT.P8 : TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DT.6.5.2010. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: EXT.R2(a) : TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S. NO. 54/2009 BEFORE MUNSIFF-MAGISTRATE COURT, MANNARKKAD DT.28.4.2009. EXT.R2(b) : TRUE COPY OF THE COMMISSION REPORT IN O.S.NO. 54/2009, COURT OF THE DISTRICT JUDGE (VACATION COURT) PALAKKAD DT.12.5.2009 EXT.R2(c) : TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DT.2.5.2010 EXT.R2(d): TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT BEFORE JFCM, MANNARKKAD DT.7.5.2010. EXT.R2(e): TRUE COPY OF I.A. 323/10 FILED BY 2ND RESPONDENT IN O.S. NO. 54/2009, MUNSIFF-MAGISTRATE COURT, MANNARKKAD, DT.17.5.2010. // TRUE COPY // K. M. JOSEPH & M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C).No. 14789 of 2010 W - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 22nd day of June, 2010 JUDGMENT Joseph, J. The prayer in the writ petition as amended reads as follows: a) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the 1st respondent to conduct an enquiry in the matter and to provide police protection to the petitioner for peaceful enjoyment of his property having an extent of 1 acre and 61 cents in Sy.No. 296/2A of Alanallur Village III and take the yield therefrom, including cutting of trees without any obstruction from respondents 2 and 3. aa) issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction directing that the 1st W.P.(C).No. 14789 of 2010 2 respondent and his subordinates shall not interfere with the petitioner's right of peaceful enjoyment of his property having an extent of 1 acre 61 cents in Sy. No. 296/2A of Alanallur Village III without the authority of law.” 2. Briefly the case of the petitioner is as follows. Petitioner, who is an issue less 96 year old senior citizen, was given possession and ownership of 1 acre 81 cents in Sy.No. 296/2A in Alanallur Village III as per Partition Deed No.11 of 1958. Out of this property, he surrendered a small piece of land for construction of a road and 8 cents of land was given to one Moideenkutty, the late father of the second respondent and the late husband of the third respondent herein for construction of a house. Ext.P1 is the latest tax receipt. Ext.P2 is the possession certificate issued by the Village Officer. W.P.(C).No. 14789 of 2010 3 3. It is stated that respondents 2 and 3 misled the Village Officer and obtained possession certificate for 80 cents, instead of 8 cents. Tax was also paid by misleading the Village Officer. Petitioner preferred a complaint. It i stated that the Village Officer cancelled the possession certificate as well as the tax receipt. Suppressing all these facts, the second respondent filed suit, O.S.No. 210 of 2009, before the Munsiff Court, Mannarkkad, alleging that the nephew of the petitioner is encroaching on the 80 cents of property. The second respondent also obtained Ext.P6 injunction order restraining the defendant therein from causing any damage to the plaint schedule property. 4. It is stated that the petitioner is the owner in possession of 1.61 acres of property in Sy.No. 296/2A. It is further stated that the respondents misled the police to believe that there is an interim injunction against the petitioner and the Sub Inspector of Police W.P.(C).No. 14789 of 2010 4 issued notice under Section 160 Cr.P.C. to the petitioner. Thereafter the petitioner filed Ext.P8 complaint before the first respondent. 5. A counter affidavit is filed by respondents 2 and 3 producing Exts.R1(a) to R2(e). They contend that the Writ Petition is filed by the defendant in O.S.No. 54 of 2009 and the petitioner is a puppet in the hands of his brother's son. It is stated that the father of the second respondent was in possession of 80 cents in Sy.No. 296/2A. The extent of the property shown in the purchase certificate is 8 cents only, but actually he is in possession of 80 cents. From 1975 onwards his father was paying the tax. It is understood that the petitioner has not paid any basic tax for the land in Sy.No. 296/2A till 2010 and Exts.P1 and P2 were procured misleading the Village Officer. W.P.(C).No. 14789 of 2010 5 6. The petitioner has filed a reply affidavit denying the allegations made in the counter affidavit. 7. We heard learned counsel for the parties, including the learned Government Pleader. 8. As far as prayer (a) is concerned, we are of clear view that the matter is a civil dispute. The petitioner has not established his right as such by obtaining a decision from any competent civil court. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the party respondents that the petitioner was arrayed as an additional defendant in O.S.No. 54 of 2009. Therefore this Court is not persuaded to issue any relief sought for. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner presses prayer (aa). We are of the view that the police cannot interfere in the civil dispute between the petitioner and respondents 2 and 3. We are not inclined to grant prayer (aa) as sought for, as we are not in a W.P.(C).No. 14789 of 2010 6 position to find that the petitioner is in possession of the plaint schedule property. That is a matter to be gone into by a civil court. We do not think that the police will be justified in interfering with the civil dispute between the petitioner and respondents 2 and 3. 10. Accordingly we dispose of the Writ Petition. While we decline to grant prayer (aa), we direct that the first respondent cannot, at any rate, at this stage of the matter, interfere in the civil dispute between the petitioner and respondents 2 and 3. (K. M. JOSEPH) Judge (M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS) Judge tm