IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD MARCH 2010 / 12TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 15918 of 2009(H) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------------- MARIYARANI, AGED 28 YEARS, JMJ HOUSE, NEAR LITTLE FLOWER U.P.SCHOOL, MANANTHAVADY, WAYANADU DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.R.DIVAKARAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, HEAD QUARTERS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, WAYANADU DISTRICT, KALPETTA. 3. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THALAPUZHA POLICE STATION, WAYANADU DISTRICT. 4. K.J.ASHISH, S/O.JAMES, AGED 27 YEARS, KALLAKKUNNEL HOUSE, THALAPUZHA THAVINJHAL AMSOM, MANANTHAVADY TALUK. 5. K.J.ANIL, S/O.JAMES, AGED 25 YEARS, KALLAKKUNNEL HOUSE, THALAPUZHA THAVINJHAL AMSOM, MANANTHAVADY TALUK. 6. K.J.ABHILASH, S/O.JAMES, AGED 23 YEARS, KALLAKKUNNEL HOUSE, THALAPUZHA THAVINJHAL AMSOM, MANANTHAVADY TALUK. R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.T.K.VIPINDAS. R4 TO R6 ADV. SRI.G.P.SHINOD SRI.RAM MOHAN.G. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC 15918/2009 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1. TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED. EXT.P2.TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN OS.NO.7/01 DATED 22.10.08. EXT.P3.TRUE COPY OF THE INJUNCTION ORDER DATED 17.10.01. EXT.P4.TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN OS.NO.79/01 DATED 23.10.08. EXT.P5.TRUE COPY OF THE PROPOSED PLAN APPROVED BY THE THAVINJHAL PANCHAYAT. EXT.P6.TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 13.4.09. K.M.JOSEPH & M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. ------------------------------------------------------ W.P.(C) No.15918 of 2009-H ---------------------------------------------- Dated, this the 3rd day of March, 2010 J U D G M E N T K.M.Joseph, J. This writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:-- “i) to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the 2nd and 3rd respondent to afford adequate and sufficient police protection to the petitioner and her employees at the time of construction work in the property belongs to the petitioner as per Exhibit P1. ii) to direct the respondents No.1 to 3 to provide adequate police protection to the petitioner as per Ext.P6.” 2. Briefly put, the case of the petitioner is as follows:--Petitioner is working as a staff nurse in New Delhi. She has purchased 36 cents of land as per document No.1883/1999 of SRO, Mananthavady from respondents 4 to 6. Respondents 4 to 6 filed a suit to set aside the sale deed executed by them. The suit was dismissed on 22.10.2008. Petitioner also filed a suit for injunction against respondents 4 WPC 15918/2009 -2- to 6 from trespassing. The injunction order was made absolute and the suit filed by the petitioner was decreed. It is stated that respondents 4 to 6 have criminal backgrounds and they are threatening the petitioner and are not allowing the petitioner to enter into her property. It is stated that the parents of the petitioner is residing earlier in a rented building which is demolished by the church authorities while the injunction order is pending against them from forceful eviction. It is stated that petitioner wants to construct a residential house. It is stated that the panchayat has approved the proposed plan for constructing the building. But, respondents 4 to 6 are not allowing the petitioner to construct the building. There is violation of injunction order, it is stated. Petitioner filed a complaint before the police authorities. 3. A counter affidavit has been filed by the 4th respondent on his own behalf and on behalf of respondents 5 and 6. It is inter alia stated in the counter affidavit that they are in possession despite Ext.P1 sale deed. It is their case that it is only a loan transaction and Ext.P1 is meant only as as a security. WPC 15918/2009 -3- 4. It is the case of respondents 4 to 6 that the exparte decree obtained by the petitioner has not become final. It is also their case that the suit filed by them is dismissed for default and that the dismissal has not become final. Learned Government Pleader also submits that it is a civil dispute. We are also of the view that it may not be appropriate for this Court in the facts of this case to grant the reliefs sought for by the petitioner as we feel that the petitioner should work out her remedies by approaching the Civil Court itself. Without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to approach the Civil Court and seek appropriate reliefs, the writ petition is disposed of. (K.M.JOSEPH) JUDGE. (M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS) JUDGE. MS