IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.HARILAL TUESDAY, THE 6TH DECEMBER 2011 / 15TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 WP(C).No. 31661 of 2011(G) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. THAHUDEEN, S/O.LATE MOHAMMED KUNJU\ ALINMOOTTIL THARAYIL, KANNAMPALLI, KEERIKADU VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 2. SULEKHA, D/O.LATE MOHAMMED KUNJU AZAD MANZIL, AJANTHA JUNCTION SREEKRISHNAPURAM PO, KAYAMKULAM ALAPPUZHA. 3. NOORJAHAN, D/O.LATE MOHAMMED KUNJU ALINMOOTTIL THARAYIL, KANNAMPALLI, KEERIKADU VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 4. SAIFUDEEN, S/O.LATE MOHAMMED KUNJU ALINMOOTTIL THARAYIL, KANNAMPALLI BHAGAM, KEERIKAD VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 5. SUKHAINA, D/O. LATE MOHAMMED KUNJU ALINMOOTTIL THARAYIL, KANNAMPALLI BHAGAM, KEERIKAD VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 6. MEHERBAN, D/O. LATE MOHAMMED KUNJU ALINMOOTTIL THARAYIL, KANNAMPALLI BHAGAM, KEERIKAD VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. (REPRESENTED BY NEXT FRIEND AND BROTHER THAJUDEEN 1ST PETITIONER) BY ADV. SRI.B.KRISHNA MANI RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE KAYAMKULAM, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT 690 502. 2. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE KAYAMKULAM ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT 690502. 3. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE KAYAMKULAM ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT 690502. 4. THE SECRETARY PATHIYOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH, KEERIKKAD POST ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT 690 508. 5. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KEERIKKADU VILLAGE ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT 690 508. 6. JAMALUDHEEN, S/O.MOHAMMED KUNJU ALINMOOTTIL THARAYIL, KANNAMPALLI BHAGAM KEERIKADU VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT 690 508. 7. NOORUL AMIN, S/O.JAMALUDEED ALINMOOTTIL THARAYIL, KANNAMPALLI BHAGAM KEERIKADU VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT 690 508. 8. SUBAIDA, D/O.MOHAMMED KUNJU ALINMOOTTIL THARAYIL, KANNAMPALLI BHAGAM KEERIKADU VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT 690 508. ADV. SRI.P.RENJITH GEORGE FOR R4 BY GOVT.PLEADER SRI.DHANESH MATHEW MANJOORAN (R1 TO R3, R5) THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO. 31661/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE WRIT PETITION W.P.(C) NO.30558/2010 BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 1/10/2010. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 11/10/2011 W.P.(C) N.30558/2010 BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 16/11/2011 FILED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT. /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & K.HARILAL, JJ. ------------------------ W.P.(C) NO. 31661 OF 2011 ------------------------ Dated this the 6th day of December, 2011 JUDGMENT Pius C.Kuriakose, J. The petitioners complain that the party respondents ( respondents 6 to 8) are obstructing measurement of 30 cents of land which belonged originally to the predecessor-in-interest of petitioners and the party respondents and was handed over to the 4th respondent Panchayat for the purpose of conducting a public market on the strength of a licence agreement. The case of the petitioners is that pursuant to Ext.P2 judgment, the Panchayat has agreed to reconvey 23 cents from out of the aforementioned 30 cents to all the petitioners in Ext.P2 judgment who are the legal heirs of the original owner, who handed over the property to the Panchayat. But the party respondents are insisting that the entire property should be reconveyed to them only and not to the petitioners in spite of the fact that Ext.P2 judgment was passed by this court in favour of the petitioners also. W.P.(C) No. 31661 /2011 2 2. As directed by us, Sri. Renjith George has taken notice on behalf of the 4th respondent - Panchayat. Mr.Renjith George submitted that the Panchayat is ready and willing to reconvey 23 cents of land as stated in Ext.P2 judgment to all the petitioners in Ext.P2. The Panchayat is ready to have a measurement conducted, so that the above 23 cents can be properly identified. We enquired of Mr.Renjith George as to whether the Panchayat has any difficulty in approaching the police for police protection in the matter of conducting measurement of the properties, so that the directions in Ext.P2 judgment can be complied with. The learned counsel submitted that the Panchayat will not have any such difficulty. 3. Under the above circumstances we are of the view that, considering the mandates of Section 252 of the Panchayat Raj Act, ideally it is the Panchayat, the 4th respondent, who should seek police protection and not the petitioners. We are of the view that directions can be issued even without notice to the party respondents as the dispute inter se between the petitioners and the party respondents over the property after reconveying can be settled in prospective civil proceedings to which the W.P.(C) No. 31661 /2011 3 petitioners and the party respondents should be parties. We dispose of this writ petition at this stage itself issuing the following directions; 4. The 4th respondent - Panchayat is directed to seek the assistance of respondents 2 or 3 as the case may be under Section 252 of the Panchayat Raj Act in the matter of conducting measurement of the property covered by Ext.P2 judgment. There will be a direction to respondents 2 and 3 that they shall render the assistance sought for to the 4th respondent in the matter of conducting the measurement. We make it clear that the dispute between the petitioners and the party respondents as to how the demarcated 23 cents should be apportioned between them will be settled later in prospective civil proceedings to which the petitioners and the party respondents are parties. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE K.HARILAL, JUDGE. dpk W.P.(C) No. 31661 /2011 4