Joseph Jayan vs The City Police Commissioner
2021 Latest Caselaw 19549 Ker

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                  PRESENT
               THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
     FRIDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 26TH BHADRA, 1943
                          WP(C) NO. 17069 OF 2021
PETITIONERS:

     1     JOSEPH JAYAN, AGED 64 YEARS, S/O.LATE LONANKUTTY,
           CHULLIKKATTU HOUSE, CHERANELLOOR DESOM,
           CHERANELLOOR P.O., PIN 682 034

     2     MARY LONANKUTTY, AGED 88 YEARS, W/O.LATE LONANKUTTY,
           CHULLIKKATTU HOUSE, CHERANELLOOR DESOM, CHERANELLOOR
           P.O., PIN 682 034

           BY ADVS.
           M.S.UNNIKRISHNAN
           V.S.SREEJITH
           K.SUNIL
           M.ARDRA KRISHNAN
           ALEENA MARIA JOSE


RESPONDENTS:

     1     THE CITY POLICE COMMISSIONER, COCHIN CITY,
           REVENUE TOWER, ERNAKULAM PIN 682 011

     2     STATION HOUSE OFFICER
           CHERANALLUR, KOCHI, PIN 682 034

     3     C.L.EBENSER, AGED 55 YEARS, S/O.LATE LONANKUTTY,
           CHULLIKKATTU HOUSE, CHERANELLOOR DESOM,
           CHERANELLOOR P.O., PIN 682 034

           BY ADVS
           P.S.NARAYANA RAJA

           SRI.E.C.BINEESH - GP


     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
17.09.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WPC 17069/21
                                         2



                                JUDGMENT

The petitioners have approached this Court

seeking a direction to be issued to respondents 1

and 2 to afford them protection to enter into the

property shown in Ext.P4 sketch and for their

workers to carry out construction works of a

compound wall on its southern boundary and on the

northern basement.

2. The petitioners say that even though they

are fully entitled to make the afore construction,

they have been obstructed by the 3rd respondent

making untenable claims; and therefore, that they

were constrained to approach the 1st respondent -

Police Commissioner through Ext.P5. They submit

that, however, no action has been taken thereon,

thus forcing them to have approached this Court

through this Writ Petition.

3. I have heard Smt.Aleena Maria Jose -

learned counsel for the petitioners; Sri.Narayana WPC 17069/21

Raja - learned counsel for the 3rd respondent and

Sri.E.C.Bineesh - learned Senior Government

Pleader appearing on behalf of the official

respondents.

4. Sri.Narayana Raja opposed the plea of the

petitioners saying that even though there are

severe disputes between his client and them with

respect to the right and title over the property

in question, they are attempting to construct a

compound wall, using this Court as a means but

without approaching and obtaining proper orders

from the competent Civil Court. He submitted that

both parties have filed cases against each other,

as is evident from Exts.P6 and P7 and therefore,

that Police may be directed not to intervene in

the civil disputes between them. He then added

that the allegations against his client are

baseless and that he has not committed any act in

violation of law or to intimidate or threaten

the petitioners. He, therefore, prayed that this WPC 17069/21

Writ Petition be dismissed.

5. In response, Sri.Aleena Maria Jose

submitted that the 3rd respondent has absolutely no

right over the property in question, explaining

that the petitioners are his brother and mother

respectively. She submitted that if the 3rd

respondent has any right over the property, it is

up to him to have approached the competent Civil

Court, but that he cannot be permitted to take law

into his hands as has been done by him. She,

therefore, reiteratingly prayed that this Writ

Petition be allowed.

6. Sri.E.C.Bineesh - learned Government

Pleader, submitted that, as is luculent from the

rival contentions of the parties as afore, the

disputes between them are in the realm of civil

law and therefore, that the Police cannot

interfere in the same. He, however, submitted

that Police are maintaining strict vigil over the

area in question to ensure that there is no WPC 17069/21

violation of law and order or breach of peace.

7. When I evaluate the afore submissions,

there can be no doubt that if the 3 rd respondent

claims any right over the property, then he must

invoke his proper remedies as per law, but cannot

use force or unleash violence in any manner

whatsoever. This is not to say that this Court has

found against the 3rd respondent, but I am only

saying that he must invoke his legal remedies and

cannot involve in such activities.

In the afore circumstances, I allow this Writ

Petition and direct the 2nd respondent-Station

House Officer to ensure that the lives and

properties of the petitioners are adequately and

effectively protected from every threat and

intimidation from any source, including the 3rd

respondent; however, leaving liberty to the said

respondent to invoke his remedy, as may be

available to him, in law, if he stakes claim to

the property in question.

WPC 17069/21

Needless to say, respondents 1 and 2 will

ensure that law and order in the area in question

is maintained at all times and that none of the

parties are allowed to breach peace in any manner

whatsoever in future.

Sd/-

RR                                  DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
                                          JUDGE
 WPC 17069/21


               APPENDIX OF WP(C) 17069/2021

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

Exhibit P1            TRUE COPY OF THE PATTAYAM IN O.A.NO.289

OF 1984 OF LAND TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM IN THE NAME OF THE 1ST PETITIONER DATED 25.10.1984.

Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.1369 OF 1957 OF S.R.O., ERNAKULAM.

Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT EXECUTED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER IN FAVOUR OF THE 1ST PETITIONER DATED 15.2.2021

Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ROUGH SKETCH OF THE PROPERTIES OF THE PETITIONERS

Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION ALONG WITH THE RECEIPT ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 6.8.21.

Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE CAVEAT NO.189/21 LODGED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, ERNAKULAM

Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE CAVEAT LODGED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT BEFORE THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, ERNAKULAM DATED 04.08.2021