Nirmala vs The Director General Of Police, Kerala

Kerala High Court

Nirmala vs The Director General Of Police, Kerala on 21 May, 2024

Author: Devan Ramachandran

Bench: Devan Ramachandran

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                               PRESENT
            THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
        TUESDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF MAY 2024 / 31ST VAISAKHA, 1946
                       WP(C) NO. 14675 OF 2024
PETITIONER:

            NIRMALA, AGED 63 YEARS,
            W/O LATE. SUDARSANAN, MELEVILA VEEDU,
            MUTTAPPALAM.P.O., CHEMMARUTHI VILLAGE,
            VARKALA TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695145.

            BY ADV M.ABDUL RASHEED


RESPONDENTS:

    1       THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, KERALA
            POLICE HEAD QUARTERS, VAZHUTHACAUD,
            THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695010.

    2       THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER
            VARKALA POLICE STATION, VARKALA.P.O.
            THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 695141.

    3       ABU, AGED 48 YEARS, S/O NAKULAN, SEBI VILASOM,
            MUTTAPPALAM.P.O., CHEMMARUTHI VILLAGE,
            VARKALA TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT,
            PIN - 695145.

    4       SHINU, AGED 47 YEARS, S/O SARATH CHANDRAN,
            ABAN HOUSE, VARKALA.P.O., VARKALA VILLAGE,
            VARKALA TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT,
            PIN - 695141.

            BY ADV SUJESH KUMAR K P
            SMT.REKHA C.NAIR, SR.GP


     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
21.05.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 14675 OF 2024
                                          -2-

                                 JUDGMENT

The petitioner is stated to be a senior citizen in absolute ownership of a property covered by Ext.P1, comprising an extent of 11.20 Ares of land. She says that she inherited the property from her husband as per Ext.P3 registered Will; and that respondent No.3 is in unauthorized occupation of the same, under a purported lease right.

2. The petitioner explains that she has, therefore, preferred Ext.P5 petition for eviction against the 3rd respondent before the Rent Control Board, Varkala; and that, infuriated by this, he and respondent No.4 are now threatening her, consequent to which, she fears for her life. She says that she, therefore, preferred Ext.P6 complaint before the 1st respondent seeking protection, particularly because she is now being obstructed from WP(C) NO. 14675 OF 2024 -3- obtaining the yield from the property; and that she was wrongfully restrained on 06.04.2024, when she and her employees attempted to do so. She alleges that, however, respondents 1 and 2 have not taken any action on Ext.P6, thus constraining her to have approached this Court through this Writ Petition.

3. However, in response to the afore submissions of Sri.M.Abdul Rasheed - learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3 - Sri.K.P.Sujesh Kumar, submitted that the allegations impelled by the petitioner in this Writ Petition are factually incorrect, especially because she is not the owner of the property and has no subsisting right over the same. He explained that the property originally belonged to the petitioner's husband - late Sudarsanan, who settled it in favour of his son (son of the WP(C) NO. 14675 OF 2024 -4- petitioner also), Sri.Sunil, who thereupon leased it to the 3rd respondent, Sri.Abu.

4. Sri.K.P.Sujesh Kumar, however, conceded that late Sudarsanan appears to have executed a Will subsequently, namely Ext.P3, in favour of the petitioner; but argued that this is of no consequence because the aforementioned settlement deed had already come into effect. He submitted that his client has already filed objections before the Rent Control Court asserting all these facts, and argued that the attempt of the petitioner is to override the same, by having filed this Writ Petition and obtaining orders in her favour.

4. The learned Senior Government Pleader, Smt.Rekha C.Nair, submitted, contrary to the allegations of the petitioner, the Police have taken cognizance of Ext.P6 complaint, to find that the disputes between the parties are in WP(C) NO. 14675 OF 2024 -5- civil realm. She submitted that, however, in obedience to the interim directions of this Court dated 08.04.2024, the life of the petitioner is being protected and that the Police are also ensuring that there are no law and order issues in the area on account of the disputes between the parties.

5. It is evident from the afore narrative of the facts that the parties appear to be at war on account of their rival claims over the property in question. It is more or less without doubt - as is also admitted at the Bar - that the party respondents have not yet initiated any legal action against the petitioner, though they filed their objections - namely Ext.P5, before the Rent Control Court, asserting that the property does not belong to the petitioner but to her son, who has, in turn, leased out the same to the third among them.

WP(C) NO. 14675 OF 2024 -6-

6. Obviously, these are not matters into which the Police should intervene in any manner, nor can they do so; but it is their obligation to ensure that the lives of the parties are sufficiently protected, as in the case of any other citizen of this country.

7. As rightly argued by the learned Senior Government Pleader, this Court had, on 08.04.2024, at the time when this Writ Petition was admitted, directed the 2nd respondent to ensure that the life of the petitioner is adequately protected. This certainly is the obligation of the Police.

In the afore circumstances, I allow this Writ Petition, confirming the afore interim order; however, clarifying that the Police will also ensure that the lives of parties on both sides are adequately protected from any threat; and that they are not allowed to take any action WP(C) NO. 14675 OF 2024 -7- in violation of law on account of their internecine disputes.

As far as the parties are concerned, they are at full liberty to invoke and pursue all the remedies before the competent Courts; for which purpose, all rival contentions are left open.

Sd/-

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE akv WP(C) NO. 14675 OF 2024 -8- APPENDIX OF WP(C) 14675/2024 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT NO.KL01061203199/2024 DATED 06.04.2024 ISSUED FROM THE VILLAGE OFFICE, VARKALA IN THE NAME OF SUDARSANAN EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE LEASE AGREEMENT DATED 28.9.2018 EXECUTED BETWEEN SUDARSANAN AND THE 3RD RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTERED WILL NO.202/2018 DATED 27.10.2018 EXECUTED BY SUDARSANAN EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE DEATH CERTIFICATE DATED 20.11.2020 OF SUDARSANAN ISSUED FROM THIRUVANANTHAPURAM CORPORATION EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE R.C. (O.P.) NO.2/2021 DATED 13.08.2021 ON THE FILE OF RENT CONTROL COURT, VARKALA EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 06.04.2024 SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT