Kerala High Court
Saji Paul vs State Police Chief on 23 September, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
THURSDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 1ST ASWINA,
1943
WP(C) NO. 10362 OF 2021
PETITIONER/S:
SAJI PAUL
AGED 60 YEARS
S/O. T.P. PAUL, THUKULAN HOUSE,
KUREEKADU,THIRUVANKULAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.
BY ADV MANSOOR.B.H.
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE POLICE CHIEF
POLICE HEAD QUARTERS, VAZHUTHACADU,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001
2 DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF,
ERNAKULAM RURAL, OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT POLICE
CHIEF, ALUVA 683 101.
3 STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
CHOTTANIKARA POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM
DISTRICT-682 312
4 UNNIKRISHNAN,
S/O. KRISHNAN, KANICHIRA HOUSE, KUREEKADU
VILLAGE, THIRUVANKULAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-682
035.
BY ADVS.
VIDYA KURIAKOSE
V.SREEJITH (K/1398/2000)
BASIL KURIAKOSE
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI. E.C. BINEESH - GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 23.09.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WPC 10362/2021
2
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, J.
------------------------
WP(C) No.10362 of 2021
----------------------------------
Dated, this the 23rd day of September, 2021
JUDGMENT
The petitioner claims to be the owner of certain extents of
land comprised of in Survey Nos.138/2, 138/19 and 150/7 of
Kureekadu Village. He says that even though the fourth
respondent has no right over the property in question, he has
been, in the past, creating several acts of nuisance; which
forced him to approach the competent Civil Court and to
obtain Ext.P1 judgment. He submitted that even after Ext.P1
judgment had become final, the fourth respondent continued
to violate it and that he was consequently, detained in a Civil
prison for three months. He alleges that, however, even now
the fourth respondent continues with his nefarious activities
and that several crimes have been registered against him.
2. The petitioner then added that when he and his
workers attempted to cut and remove rubber trees standing in
WPC 10362/2021
his property, it was obstructed by the fourth respondent
claiming that he is in possession of the same. The petitioner
argued that this assertion of the fourth respondent can never
be accepted on account of the final declarations in Ext.P1
judgment; and therefore, that he preferred Ext.P7 complaint
before the third respondent - Station House Officer, seeking
protections. He alleges that, however, no action was taken by
the Police on his request, thus forcing him to approach this
Court through this writ petition. He, therefore, prays that the
third respondent - Station House Officer, be directed to afford
him and his employees necessary and effective protection,
while they cut and remove the rubber trees standing in his
property afore mentioned.
3. I have heard Sri.B.H.Mansoor, learned counsel for
the petitioner; Sri.Sreejesh Vijayan, learned counsel
appearing for the fourth respondent and Sri.E.C.Bineesh,
learned Government pleader appearing for official
respondents.
WPC 10362/2021
4. Sri.E.C.Bineesh, learned Government Pleader,
submitted that, after the petitioner had approached the third
respondent with Ext.P7 request, the Police have ensured that
law and order is maintained in the area in question and that
no instances of breach of peace has been noticed. He,
therefore, prayed that this writ petition be thus ordered.
5. Sri.Sreejesh Vijayan, learned counsel for the fourth
respondent, in response, submitted that the attempt of the
petitioner is to illegally oust his client, who is even now in
possession of the land in survey No.138/2; and thus prayed
that this Court cannot grant any relief to him. He then added
that, in fact, Ext.P1 judgment covers only six cents of land in
survey No.138/2 and that his client is in possession of other
extents in the said survey number.
6. It is obvious from the afore rival contentions that,
while the petitioner claims right over the property based on
Ext.P1 judgment, the fourth respondent asserts possession
over some extent of it, which is comprised of in Survey
WPC 10362/2021
No.138/2. However, the fourth respondent has not been able
to show me any document in substantiation of his assertion
and therefore, even if he is assumed to be in possession of
the extent which he claims, it would not give him any right to
take law into his own hands or to cause any obstructional
activities against the petitioner or his employees, while they
cut and remove the rubber trees standing in petitioner's
property. The best that the fourth respondent can claim is
possession of some extent of land in survey No.138/2, which
this Court cannot adjudicate or state affirmatively in this writ
petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
7. In the afore circumstances, I allow this writ petition
and direct the third respondent to afford adequate and
effective protection to the petitioner and his workmen, when
they are engaged in the activity of cutting and removing of
rubber trees standing in the property owned by the petitioner,
covered by Ext.P1 judgment; however, making it clear that
under the strength of this order, no action will be taken against
WPC 10362/2021
the fourth respondent, even if he is physically found in
possession of any extent in Survey No.138/2.
Needless to say, the competent Police Authority also will
be obligated to ensure that law and order is maintained in the
area in question and that breach of peace is not committed by
any person, including the fourth respondent or his men.
This writ petition is thus ordered.
Sd/-
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN,
JUDGE
jg
WPC 10362/2021
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 10362/2021
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE
DATED 31.1.2011 IN O.S. NO. 429/2009 OF
MUNSIFF COURT, ERNAKULAM.
EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF THE DELIVERY REPORT IN E.P.
308/2013 OF MUNSIFFS COURT, ERNAKULAM.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 14.2.2018
IN W.P.C NO. 8824/2017 OF THIS HON'BLE
COURT.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE F.I.R IN CRIME NO.
89/2020 OF CHOTTANIKARA POLICE STATION.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 21.7.2020
OF THE AMIN DEPUTED BY THE COURT.
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 22.2.2021
IN W.P.C NO. 19/2021 OF THIS HON'BLE
COURT.
EXHIBIT P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED
20.04.2021 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER
BEFORE THE THIRD RESPONDENT AND ITS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT RECEIPT.
RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS
EXT.R4(a) TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED
23.2.2021 SUBMITTED BY R4 BEFORE THE SHO,
CHOTTANIKARA ALONG WITH RECEIPT.
EXT.R4(b) TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BY
R4 BEFORE THE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION
DATED 11.4.2021.
