Kerala High Court
Suresh vs The Station House Officer on 20 June, 2024
Author: Devan Ramachandran
Bench: Devan Ramachandran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
THURSDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF JUNE 2024 / 30TH JYAISHTA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 35132 OF 2023
PETITIONER:
SURESH
AGED 36 YEARS, S/O LATE MURUGAN,
RESIDING AT POTHUPPADY, CHITTUR P.O.,
AGALI, PALAKKAD, PIN - 678581
BY ADVS.
T.C.SURESH MENON
B.DEEPAK
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER
PUDUR POLICE STATION, AGALI,
PALAKKAD, PIN - 678581
2 PANALI
S/O LATE VELLI, RESIDING AT
MELE ABANNUR, PADAVAYAL VILLAGE,
ATTAPPADY TRIBUNAL TALUK, THAVALAM P.O.,
PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678589
3 LINGAN
S/O LATE KADAN, RESIDING AT
MELE ABANNUR, PADAVAYAL VILLAGE,
ATTAPPADY TRIBUNAL TALUK, THAVALAM P.O.,
PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678589
4 KRISHNAKUMAR
S/O LATE KADAN, RESIDING AT
MELE ABANNUR, PADAVAYAL VILLAGE,
ATTAPPADY TRIBUNAL TALUK, THAVALAM P.O.,
PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678589
5 MURUKAN
S/O LATE NANJAN, RESIDING AT
MELE ABANNUR, PADAVAYAL VILLAGE,
ATTAPPADY TRIBUNAL TALUK, THAVALAM P.O.,
PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678589
6 SIVADASAN
S/O LATE NANJAN, RESIDING AT
MELE ABANNUR, PADAVAYAL VILLAGE,
W.P.(C).No. 35132 of 2023
:2:
ATTAPPADY TRIBUNAL TALUK, THAVALAM P.O.,
PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678589
7 SASI
S/O LATE NANJAN, RESIDING AT
MELE ABANNUR, PADAVAYAL VILLAGE,
ATTAPPADY TRIBUNAL TALUK, THAVALAM P.O.,
PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678589
BY ADVS.
SRI.BINOY VASUDEVAN
SMT.REKHA C.NAIR, SR.GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 20.06.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C).No. 35132 of 2023
:3:
JUDGMENT
The petitioner says that he is the owner of the land
involved in this case, and has produced Ext.P1 Possession
Certificate and Ext.P2 Tax Receipt in substantiation. He says
that he has carried on agricultural operations in the land and
also intends to construct a residential building for himself; but
that this is being obstructed by the party respondents without
any tenable cause, but making certain usurious claims. He
alleges that, he and his employees were threatened and even
attempted to be assaulted several times and, therefore, that he
preferred a complaint before the 1 st respondent - Station House
Officer, seeking protection, which, however, has not been
acceded to.
2. The petitioner submits that that the situation is
exacerbated because, he has thereafter obtained Ext.P4 order of
injunction, which restrains the party respondents from
trespassing into his property or from obstructing the
construction; but that they have still persisted in doing so, thus
constraining him to approach the 1 st respondent again through
Ext.P5 seeking protection. He asserts that, since the 1 st
respondent has refused to take action, he has been constrained
to approach this Court through this writ petition.
3. In response to the afore submissions of the petitioner,
as argued by his learned counsel - Sri.T.C.Suresh Menon, the
learned counsel for the party respondents - Sri.Binoy
Vasudevan, submitted that his clients have already filed
objections against Ext.P4 order, and is confident of having the
same vacated because the petitioner is not the owner of the
land, nor does he have any right over it. He, however, conceded
that, as long as Ext.P4 is in force, his clients cannot and will not
violate it; and further that the allegations against them, that
they have meted out threats and intimidation to the petitioner
and have even attempted to assault him, are all baseless; and
that they have not done and do not intend to do so in future. He,
however, sought liberty for his clients to invoke and pursue their
legal remedies against the petitioner, which they have already
done as per law.
4. Smt.Rekha C.Nair - learned Senior Government
Pleader, affirmed that the disputes between the parties are in
the civil realm and that civil litigations are pending. She added
that the police cannot intervene into the same, but will ensure
that their lives are adequately protected against each other and
that their disputes do not degenerate into a law and order issue.
She prayed that this writ petition be ordered on such terms.
5. There can be little doubt that the afore stand of the
police is the most apposite in the given circumstances because,
they are not expected to stand guard for constructions or to
resolve boundary disputes, or civil litigation between the
parties. They cannot even intervene into the same; but are
expected to protect lives and properties, as in the case of any
other citizen.
In the afore perspective, I allow this writ petition and
record the afore submissions of Sri.Binoy Vasudevan and the
learned Senior Government Pleader; thus directing the 1 st
respondent to ensure that the lives of the parties are adequately
protected against each other and that they do not take the law
into their own hands, whatever be the provocation or reason of
their subsisting disputes. The police will, however, ensure that
the party respondents do not violate Ext.P4 as long as it is in
force and that law and order is always maintained, without
anyone of them being allowed to commit any act which is in
violation of law.
As far as the parties are concerned, their respective
remedies against each other, as also the contentions in that
regard, are fully left open, which they can impel and pursue
before any competent Authority/Court; however, without
resorting to violence or such other deleterious conduct.
I reiteratingly clarify that, I have not entered into the
merits of any of the rival contentions of the parties qua the
property or the rights over it, and that they are left open to be
decided by the competent Authority/Court, as the case may be.
Sd/-
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
JUDGE
anm
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 35132/2023
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit-P1 TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE
ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, DATED
3.3.2023.
Exhibit-P2 TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT ISSUED
BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, DATED 5.10.2023.
Exhibit-P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ISSUED
BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT, DATED 20.9.2023.
Exhibit-P4 TRUE COPY OF I.A. NO.944/2023 IN O.S.
NO.178/2023 ALONG WITH THE ORDER OF
INJUNCTION, DATED 4.9.2023.
Exhibit-P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST MADE BY THE
PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT,
DATED 16.10.2023.
Exhibit-P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ISSUED
BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT, DATED 16.10.2023.
RESPONDENT EXHIBITS
Exhibit R-2(a) TRUE COPY OF PURCHASE CERTIFICATE NO
705/1971 DATED 31-8-1971 BY LAND TRIBUNAL
ISSUED IN FAVOUR OF KARUMBAN
