Kerala High Court
Pulikkal Varghese vs The Circle Inspector Of Police on 30 July, 2021
WP(C) NO. 3540 OF 2021 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
FRIDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF JULY 2021 / 8TH SRAVANA, 1943
WP(C) NO. 3540 OF 2021
PETITIONER/S:
PULIKKAL VARGHESE,
AGED 69 YEARS,
S/O.DEVASSIA, SREEKANDAPURAM, SREEKANDAPURAM P.O., KANNUR
DISTRICT, PIN - 670 631.
BY ADV GEORGE MECHERIL
RESPONDENT/S:
1 THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
SREEKANDAPURAM, SREEKANDAPURAM P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN
- 670 631.
2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER
PAYYAVOOR P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670 633.
3 ISSAC MADATHILPARAMBIL
*[MADATHILPARAMBIL] HOUSE, MADAKKAL, PAISAKKARI P.O.,
PAYYAVOOR (VIA), KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670 633.[CORRECTED
VIDE SIDE LEAF]
4 THRESSIAMMA
W/O.ISSAC MADATHIPARAMBIL, * MADAKKAL, PAISAKKARI P.O.,
PAYYAVOOR (VIA), KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670 633.[HOUSE
NAME INSERTED]
*THE HOUSE NAME OF R3 SHOWN AS MADATHHIL PARAMBIL IS
CORRECTED AS "MADATHIL" AND HOUSE NAME "MADATHIL" IS
INSERTED IN THE ADDRESS OF R4, AS PER ORDER DATED
16.2.2021 IN I.A.NO.1 OF 2021 IN WP(C)3540/2021.
BY ADVS.
SRI.V.T.MADHAVANUNNI
SRI.V.A.SATHEESH
SRI P P THAJUDEEN, SR GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
30.07.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 3540 OF 2021 2
JUDGMENT
The petitioner has approached this Court seeking issuance of directions to
respondents 1 and 2 to provide effective protection to the life and property of
the petitioner and also to provide protection to his employees to carry out
normal agricultural operations in the property covered under Ext.P1 title deed.
2. The petitioner contends that he is the owner in absolute title,
possession and enjoyment of 1.25 Acres of land comprised in Re-Sy. No.1/7111
of Payyavur Village. The said property was acquired by him on the strength of
Ext.P1 sale deed. Reliance is placed on Ext.P2 basic tax receipt and Ext.P3
possession certificate to substantiate his contention that he is enjoying the
property covered under Ext.P1.
3. It is contended that there are disputes between the petitioner and
party respondents in respect of an item of property having an extent of 25 cents
and lying contiguous to the property purchased by the petitioner. When
obstructions were caused, the petitioner approached the Court of the Munsiff,
Thaliparamba and instituted a suit for fixation of boundary and for a permanent
prohibitory injunction. The assignor of the petitioner had instituted
O.S.No.207/2011 seeking to restrain the party respondents from trespassing
into the 25 cents of land. The 4th respondent on the other hand instituted
O.S.No.483/2011 arraying the father of the vendor of the petitioner as the
defendant and sought for a decree of specific performance of an agreement for
sale with respect to the 25 cents. The petitioner contends that the suits were
tried by the learned Munsiff and by Ext.P4 common judgment dated 29.2.2020,
the suit filed by the petitioner herein was allowed and the one instituted by the
4th respondent was dismissed. The 4th respondent was restrained by a decree
of permanent prohibitory injunction from trespassing into the plaint schedule
property, from committing any act of waste and from obliterating boundary
demarcations. Though the party respondents have preferred an appeal, no stay
has been granted. The petitioner contends that the party respondents are
interfering with the rights of the petitioner and they had threatened the
petitioner and his workers with physical harm by brandishing weapons.
According to the petitioner, the 4th respondent is bound to obey the judgment
of the learned Munsiff unless the same is altered or set aside by a superior
court. When the obstructions and threats caused by the party respondents
continued, the petitioner lodged a complaint before the 2nd respondent seeking
action and also to enable him to carry out agricultural operations. When no
action was taken, he is stated to have lodged Ext.P8 complaint before the 1st
respondent. Complaining of inaction, the petitioner is before this Court seeking
directions.
4. A counter affidavit has been filed by the 4th respondent. It is
stated that the petitioner has approached the learned Munsiff seeking to
execute the decree and in that view of the matter, this writ petition is not
required to be entertained. It is further stated that challenging the order
passed by the learned Munsiff, the 4th respondent has preferred an appeal and
the same is pending. It is also stated that they have not created any law and
order situation as alleged.
5. The 2nd respondent has filed a statement wherein it is stated that
on 22.11.2020, when the petitioner attempted to enter his property, he was
obstructed by the 4th respondent claiming right over the same. It is submitted
that no crimes have been registered against either of the parties. It is also
stated that protection shall be granted to the petitioner if any such
circumstances warranting such action arises.
6. I have considered the submissions advanced.
7. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that the civil court after
elaborate consideration of the facts and circumstances have granted a decree in
favour of the petitioner as per which the party respondents have been
interdicted from trespassing into the property covered under Ext.P1, from
committing any act of waste and from obliterating boundary demarcations. Of
course, the party respondents have approached the appellate court but no
orders of stay have been granted. In that view of the matter, the party
respondents will not be justified in interfering with the rights of the petitioner or
in raising threats of physical harm. Of course, records reveal that an application
for executing the decree is pending before the civil court. However, that does
not mean that the party respondents can take law into their own hands and
create obstructions or raise threats. I am of the considered opinion that
necessary directions can be issued to respondents 1 and 2 to afford protection
and take appropriate action if any incident is reported.
Resultantly, this writ petition is disposed of directing the petitioner to
approach the 1st respondent and lodge a complaint, if any interference is
caused or if any threats are made by the party respondents or their men. If any
such complaint is received, respondents 1 and 2 shall ascertain the genuineness
of the complaint and if the same is found to be true, appropriate action shall be
taken and effective protection shall be granted. It is made clear that this order
shall be subject to the orders passed by the appellate court.
Sd/-
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
JUDGE
ps
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 3540/2021
PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS :
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.3207/2011 OF
S.R.O., SREEKANDAPURAM.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT ISSUED ON
13/7/2020 BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, PAYYAVOOR
FOR THE YEAR 2020-21.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE LATEST POSSESSION
CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
PAYYAVOOR ON 28/1/2021.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON JUDGMENT DATED
29/2/2020 IN O.S.NO.207/2011, 483/2011 AND
291/2012 OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT,
TALIPARAMBA.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE DECREE DATED 29/2/2020 IN
O.S.NO.291/2012.
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL IN
A.S.NO.29/2020 FILED AGAINST THE JUDGMENT
IN O.S.NO.291/2012.
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BEFORE THE
2ND RESPONDENT ON 22/11/2020.
EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FILED ON
3/12/2020 BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND
RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE E.P.8/2021 IN
O.S.NO.291/2012 FILED BEFORE THE MUNSIFF'S
COURT, TALIPARAMBA.
EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE E.A.NO.2/2021 IN
E.P.NO.8/2021 IN O.S.NO.291/2012.
RESPONDENT(S) EXHIBITS :
EXHIBIT R4(a) TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL IN
A.S.NO.29/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE SUB COURT
PAYYANNUR.
EXHIBIT R4(b) TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION IN
I.A.No.426/2020 IN AS NO.29/2020 ON THE
FILE OF SUB COURT, PAYYANNUR.
