Kerala High Court
Abdul Azeez T.P vs District Police Chief on 7 July, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE C.S. SUDHA
FRIDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF JULY 2023 / 16TH ASHADHA, 1945
WA NO. 1140 OF 2023
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 2301/2023 DATED 08.02.2023
OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
ABDUL AZEEZ T.P
AGED 45 YEARS
S/O AHAMEDKUTTY THATHAMMAPARAMBIL HOUSE, NIT P.O
KOZHIKODE, PIN - 680582
BY ADVS.
M.P.ASHOK KUMAR
BINDU SREEDHAR
ASIF N
SUDHAKARAN P.
P.C.GOPINATH
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF
WAYANAD DISTRICT POLICE SUPERINTENDENT'S OFFICE
CIVIL STATION MADATHUMPADI KALPETTA PO WAYANAD,
PIN - 673122
2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER
SULTHAN BATHERY POLICE STATION POLICE STATION RD
SULTAN BATHERY WAYANAD, PIN - 673592
3 BHANUMATHI
W/O LATE RAVEENDRAN KUPPADI AMSOM DESOM KUPPADI
VILLAGE MOOLANKAVU PO SULTHAN BATHERY WAYANAD,
PIN - 673592
Writ Appeal No.1140 of 2023 2
4 RAMITHA T.R
D/O LATE RAVEENDRAN KUPPADI AMSOM DESOM KUPPADI
VILLAGE MOOLANKAVU PO SULTHAN BATHERY WAYANAD,
PIN - 673592
5 RAHUL T.R
S/O LATE RAVEENDRAN KUPPADI AMSOM DESOM KUPPADI
VILLAGE MOOLANKAVU PO SULTHAN BATHERY WAYANAD,
PIN - 673592
6 RAGHI T.R
D/O LATE RAVEENDRAN KUPPADI AMSOM DESOM KUPPADI
VILLAGE MOOLANKAVU PO SULTHAN BATHERY WAYANAD,
PIN - 673592
BY ADV.ALEX M THOMBRA, SPL.GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
07.07.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
Writ Appeal No.1140 of 2023 3
P.B.SURESH KUMAR & C.S.SUDHA, JJ.
-----------------------------------------------
Writ Appeal No.1140 of 2023
-----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 7th day of July, 2023
JUDGMENT
P.B.Suresh Kumar, J.
This writ appeal is directed against the judgment
dated 8.2.2023 in writ petition(c) No.2301 of 2023. The
appellant was the petitioner in the writ petition.
2. The appellant owns a property measuring 40.47
ares in Survey No.380/4 of Kuppadi Village covered by
document No.1870/1/2022 of Sulthan Bathery SRO. On the
appellant purchasing the said property, respondents 3 to 6
instituted a suit as O.S.No.107 of 2022 before the Munsiff's
Court, Sulthan Bathery seeking a decree of permanent
prohibitory injunction restraining the appellant and his
predecessor from trespassing into the plaint A schedule
property therein situated in Survey No.467/1A5 of the same
village. The case set out by respondents 3 to 6 in the said suit
is that the appellant has trespassed into a portion of plaint A
schedule property which is shown in the plaint as plaint C
schedule, and is attempting to trespass further into plaint A
schedule property. The respondents sought a decree in the
said suit for recovery of possession of plaint C schedule
property also from the appellant in addition to the decree of
permanent prohibitory injunction claimed in the suit. Even
though respondents 3 to 6 sought an order of temporary
injunction in the suit, the court did not grant any order of
temporary injunction in respect of plaint C schedule property as
respondents 3 to 6 are seeking a decree for recovery of
possession of the said property from the petitioner. The writ
petition was instituted seeking police protection to enjoy the
property covered by document No.1870/1/2022, alleging that in
the guise of the order of temporary injunction obtained in the
suit, respondents 3 to 6 are not permitting the appellant to
enjoy his property.
3. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ
petition taking the view that an order of police protection
cannot be granted to enjoy a property in the peculiar facts of
this case. The petitioner is aggrieved by the said decision of
the learned Single Judge and hence this appeal.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant.
5. The case of the appellant in essence is that
inasmuch as respondents 3 to 6 do not claim any right over the
property in survey No.380/4 covered by document
No.1870/1/2022, the police officials are obliged to afford
protection to the appellant to enjoy the said property. It is all
the more so, according to the appellant, since the civil court has
not granted any injunction in respect of the disputed property,
viz, plaint C schedule property in the suit.
6. No doubt, civil court has not granted an order of
temporary injunction in favour of respondents 3 to 6 in respect
of plaint C schedule property. As the appellant maintains the
stand that neither he nor his predecessor has trespassed into
any part of the property owned by respondents 3 to 6 in survey
No.380/4, the appellant seeks in this proceedings police
protection not only for his property covered by document
No.1870/1/2022 but also for plaint C schedule property in the
suit. Even though the civil court has not granted any order of
temporary injunction in respect of the plaint C schedule
property in the suit, the same being the subject matter of the
suit, it is inappropriate for this court to entertain a writ petition
for police protection in respect of the said property. In the said
view of the matter, we are in agreement with the view taken by
the learned Single Judge. The writ appeal, in the
circumstances, is only to be dismissed and we do so. It is
however, made clear that this judgment will not preclude the
appellant from moving the civil court for appropriate
clarification so as to enable him to enjoy the property covered
by document No.1870/1/2022, in respect of which no dispute is
raised in the suit.
Sd/-
P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE.
Sd/-
C.S.SUDHA, JUDGE.
Mn
