Albert Augustine K. J vs The Sub Inspector Of Police
2021 Latest Caselaw 1755 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                               PRESENT

          THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

     MONDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 28TH POUSHA, 1942

                       WP(C).No.9648 OF 2020(E)


PETITIONER:

               ALBERT AUGUSTINE K. J.
               AGED 73 YEARS
               S/O. JOSEPH, PENSIONER, HOUSE NO.XII/642 IN KOTTAPADY
               GRAMA PANCHAYATH, KOTHAMANGALAM TALUK, ERNAKULAM
               DISTRICT, PIN CODE - 686 692.

               BY ADV. SRI.LIJOY P.VARGHESE

RESPONDENTS:

      1        THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE
               KOTTAPADY POLICE STATION, KOTTAPADY GRAMA PANCHAYATH,
               KOTHAMANGALAM TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT,
               PIN - 686 692.

      2        THE SUPERINTENDANT OF POLICE
               ERNAKULAM (RURAL), POWER HOUSE JUNCTION,
               SUB JAIL ROAD, PERIYAR NAGAR, ALUVA,
               ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 683 101.

      3        THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE
               ERNAKULAM RANGE, MARINE DRIVE, KOCHI, PIN - 682 031.

      4        STATE OF KERALA
               REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
               ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031.

      5        SUB REGISTRAR
               OFFICE OF THE SUB REGISTRAR, KOTHAMANGALAM,
               ERNAKULAM, PIN - 686691.

      6        C. N. THAMPAN
               AGED 67 YEARS
               S/O. CHERUVALLIPADY NARAYANAN, CHERUVALLIPADY,
               KOTTAPADY GRAMA PANCHAYATH, KOTHAMANGALAM TALUK,
               ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686 695.
 WP(C).No.9648 OF 2020(E)      2



             R6 BY ADV. SRI.DINESH MATHEW J.MURICKEN

             SRI PP THAJUDEEN, GP

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
18.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C).No.9648 OF 2020(E)             3




                             JUDGMENT

The above captioned writ petition is filed seeking a direction to

the respondents 1 to 4 to afford adequate protection to the life and

property of the petitioner and his family and also to protect them from

any forcible dispossession from House No.XII/642 in Kottappadi Grama

Panchayat.

2. The 6th respondent is the owner of the building bearing No.

XII/642 situated in 8 cents of property at Kottappadi Village. He is

stated to have agreed to sell the building along with the property to

the petitioner for a total consideration of Rs.10.75 lakhs. An

agreement was entered into on 24.5.2019 on which day, a sum of Rs.

1001/- was paid by way of advance. The balance amount was to be

paid in two installments. According to the petitioner, the party

respondent undertook that he would clear the dues to the bank and

hand over the original records on or before 30.4.2020. The possession

of the property was handed over to the petitioner and he has been

residing there since then. The petitioner states that the house was

built under the EMS Housing Scheme and there is a restriction in

assigning the property for a period of ten years. These facts were not

brought to his notice when the agreement was entered into. On

receiving the said information, the petitioner instructed his bank to

stop the payment of the cheque issued by him for a sum of Rs.4 lakhs

towards the first installment. According to the petitioner, the party

respondent and his men are trying to forcibly dispossess the petitioner

from the building by using physical force. In the said circumstances,

the petitioner has lodged Ext.P1 complaint before the 1st respondent,

which was followed up with complaints before the other respondents

as well. However, no worthwhile action was taken. He says that the

petitioner is under constant threat of dispossession. It is in the

aforesaid circumstances that he has approached this Court seeking

directions.

3. This Court, by order dated 5.5.2020, had directed the 1st

respondent to ensure that the petitioner and his family are not thrown

out from his residence during lockdown by the 6th respondent.

4. I have heard Sri.Lijoy Parackal Varghese, the learned counsel

appearing for the petitioner, Sri.Dinesh Mathew Muricken, the learned

counsel appearing for the party respondent and Sri.P.P.Thajudheen,

the learned Government Pleader.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that

the party respondent has no authority to dispossess the petitioner

except as per the procedure established by law.

6. Sri. Dinesh Mathew Murickan, the learned counsel appearing

for the party respondent submitted that the entire transactions are

disputed by the party respondent. According to the learned counsel,

even according to the petitioner, all that he has paid is Rs.1001/-. He

would further contend that the possession of the property has not

been granted to the petitioner. The agreement is not even registered

and hence, the petitioner cannot contend that the possession has

been handed over. Instead of approaching the Civil Court for

establishing his rights, the petitioner has approached this Court by

narrating falsehood and has secured an interim order, contends the

learned counsel.

7. The learned Senior Government Pleader, on instructions,

submitted that the dispute has arisen pursuant to an alleged

agreement for sale entered into between the parties. He would

contend that the parties be relegated to the Civil Court for appropriate

reliefs and the police may not be ordered to interfere in such matters.

8. I have considered the submissions advanced. As rightly

submitted by the learned Government Pleader, the dispute between

the petitioner and the party respondent is purely a civil dispute and it

is for the petitioner to approach the jurisdictional Civil Court and

establish his civil rights. When the entire transactions are disputed, it

would not be proper for this Court to conclude that either the

petitioner or the party respondent is in possession of the property. In

that view of the matter, reserving the right of the petitioner to move

the Civil Court, this writ petition is disposed of. Needless to say, if any

complaint is lodged alleging breach of peace, its genuineness shall be

ascertained and appropriate action shall be taken by the 1st

respondent.

This writ petition is disposed of.

Sd/-

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

JUDGE

Sru

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 22.01.2020, FILED BEFORE THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KOTTAPADY POLICE STATION.

EXHIBIT P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 05.02.2020, FILED BEFORE THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ERNAKULAM (RURAL).

EXHIBIT P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 28.02.2020, FILED BEFORE THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, ERNAKULAM RANGE.

EXHIBIT P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 28.02.2020, RECEIVED WHEN COMPLAINT WAS FILED BEFORE THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, ERNAKULAM RANGE.

EXHIBIT P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT FOR SALE DATED 24.05.2019, ENTERED INTO BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND THE 6TH RESPONDENT HEREIN.

EXHIBIT P6 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PARENT DEED OF THE LAND PROPOSED TO BE PURCHASED BY THE PETITIONER, DEED NO.3243/2006 OF KOTHAMANGALAM S.R.O. DATED 22.05.2006.

EXHIBIT P7 THE TRUE COPY OF THE OPERATION NOTES OF THE WIFE OF THE PETITIONER DATED 27.05.2016, ISSUED FROM LOURDES HOSPITAL, ERNAKULAM.

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS:NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.A TO JUDGE