Kerala High Court
V.R.Bijulal vs Thecommissioner Of Police on 5 September, 2024
1
W.P.(C) NO.25015 OF 2021
2024:KER:67519
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI
THURSDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2024 / 14TH BHADRA, 1946
W.P.(C) NO.25015 OF 2021
PETITIONERS:
1 V.R.BIJULAL, AGED 45 YEARS,
S/O.VELAYUDHANN PILLAI, VAISAKK VEEDU, T.C.50/600-3,
KARAMANA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 002.
2 NJANADAS, AGED 55 YEARS,
MANATHOTTATHU THOTTAM HOUSE, VELLARADA P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 505.
3 RAJAN BABU, AGED 53 YEARS,
V.P.13/462, CHARUVILA PUTHEN VEEDU,
VILAPPILSALA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 573.
BY ADVS.
D.SAJEEV
LIGEY ANTONY
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE,
OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM CITY, VAZHUTHACAUD,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 036.
2 THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
KARAMANA POLICE STATION, KARAMANA P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 002.
3 THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
KARAMANA POLICE STATION, KARAMANA P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 002.
2
W.P.(C) NO.25015 OF 2021
2024:KER:67519
4 BHAVANI, W/O.KARUNAKARAN, T.C.NO.64/1064, RAJI BHAVAN,
KARUMAM, KARAMANA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 002.
5 SOJA, D/O.BHAVANI, T.C.NO.64/1064, RAJI BHAVAN, KARUMAM,
KARAMANA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 002.
6 SREEJA, D/O.BHAVANI, T.C.NO.64/1064, RAJI BHAVAN,
KARUMAM, KARAMANA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 002.
7 AJI, S/O.KARUNAKARAN, T.C.NO.64/1064, RAJI BHAVAN,
KARUMAM, KARAMANA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 002.
8 AJITH, S/O.KARUNAKARAN, T.C.NO.64/1064, RAJI BHAVAN,
KARUMAM, KARAMANA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 002.
9 BINU, S/O.KARUNAKARAN, T.C.NO.64/1064, RAJI BHAVAN,
KARUMAM, KARAMANA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 002.
BY ADVS.
ANEESH JAMES
JIJO THOMAS
M.D.BEENA
OTHER PRESENT:
SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SRI. BIMAL K NATH
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
12.11.2021, THE COURT ON 05.09.2024 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
3
W.P.(C) NO.25015 OF 2021
2024:KER:67519
JUDGMENT
(Dated: 5th September, 2024)
The petitioners alleged that they are the absolute owners of
5.166 cents of land comprised in Re-Sy. No.203/2 of Nemom
Village, Thiruvananthapuram Taluk. The said property was
purchased by them as per sale deed No.1391/09 dated
15.06.2009 of Nemom Sub Registrar's Office. The property
originally belonged to one Rama Sharma and after his death, the
property devolved into his wife, Gomathy Ammal, and his son
Eswaran. They sold the property to one Velappan Asari, who in
turn sold the property to the petitioners. Rama Sharma was
running an Engineering workshop named Sharma Engineering
Works in the property by taking Rs.28,986.80/- towards a
machinery loan and Rs.8,000/- towards a building loan, and
failed to repay the amounts, hence RR proceedings were
W.P.(C) NO.25015 OF 2021
2024:KER:67519
initiated against him. Later M/s. Sunrise Industries Centre had
taken over the unit with all liabilities, they also failed to remit the
arrears of the loan as agreed. Later, a suit was instituted as
O.S.No.568 of 2000, alleging that M/s.Sunrise Industries Centre
is doing business in the building, and the suit was dismissed for
default on 14.11.2002. The husband of the 4th respondent
instituted O.S.No.1947 of 2009, alleging that he has taken over
M/s. Sunrise Industries Centre for conducting the workshop. The
said suit was also dismissed for default on 16.02.2011. Again,
the plaintiff filed a restoration application to restore O.S.No.1947
of 2009, and the application was allowed, and the suit was
restored. After a lapse of 8 years, the suit was dismissed for
default by judgment dated 10.10.2018. O.S.No.1947 of 2009
was filed when there was trespass into the property. Another
suit, O.S.No.1579 of 2011, was filed for declaration of the title
W.P.(C) NO.25015 OF 2021
2024:KER:67519
and for an injunction restraining the defendant from encroaching
into the plaint schedule property.
2. The petitioners allege that on 22.10.2021,
respondents 4 to 9 trespassed into the property covered by
Ext.P1 and obstructed the KSEB officials from terminating the
electric line on the application of the petitioners. When
petitioners tried to renovate the shed and reconstruct it,
respondents 4 to 9 objected and declared that they would
endanger the life of the petitioners if they attempted to
demolish the shed or disconnect the electric supply. Stating all
these facts, a complaint was filed before respondents 1 to 3, but
no action was taken, hence, they have approached this court
with the following reliefs:
i. To issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate
writ, direction or order commanding the respondents 1 to 3 to afford
adequate and sufficient protection to the life of the petitioners so as to
enable them to enter into the property which was purchased by them
W.P.(C) NO.25015 OF 2021
2024:KER:67519
as per Exhibit P1 sale deed, from the hands of the Respondents 4 to 9
and any men under them.
ii. To issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, direction or
order commanding the respondents 2 and 3 to afford adequate,
sufficient and meaningful protection to the property of the petitioners
covered by Exhibit P1 sale deed, including the building therein, taking
in to account of Ext P5 judgment of the 3rd Additional Munsiff Court,
Thiruvananthapuram and to ensure the enjoyment of the property by
the petitioners.
Iii. To issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, direction
or order commanding the 1st respondent to consider and pass
appropriate orders in Exhibit PB complaint after conducting a proper
enquiry and initiate appropriate proceedings against the respondents 4
to 9 and their henchmen, who have trespassed into the decree
scheduled property in Ext. P5 judgment, thereby blatantly violated the
law and the court orders.
iv) To grant such other reliefs, as deemed fit to be granted by this
hon'ble court in the facts and circumstances of the above case.
3. A counter affidavit filed by respondents 4 to 9,
wherein it is submitted that the petitioners suppressed the
pendency of O.S.No.1152 of 2021 before the Munsiff's Court,
Thiruvananthapuram in respect of the property that is the
subject matter of the writ petition.
4. The counsel for the petitioners submits that the writ
W.P.(C) NO.25015 OF 2021
2024:KER:67519
petitioner was never in possession and occupation of the
property, and the property was in possession and occupation of
the respondents. The respondents were conducting the
Industrial Unit engaged in the manufacture of nails, screws, nuts
and bolts. The unit was functioning till March 2020, and on
account of COVID, the unit was lying closed thereafter.
5. Respondents' counsel submits that the petitioners
trespassed into the property at midnight of 22.10.2021, broke
open the lock of the Industrial shed, and replaced it with their
lock. Respondents were forced to file O.S.No.1152 of
2021. Suppressing the filing of O.S. No.1152 of 2021, the
petitioners have approached this Court and have obtained an
interim order directing respondents 2 and 3 to ensure that the
lives and property of the petitioners are afforded adequate and
effective protection from threat and intimidation from any
W.P.(C) NO.25015 OF 2021
2024:KER:67519
person including respondents 4 to 9 and their men.
6. In the counter affidavit, it is alleged that after
obtaining the interim order dated 12.11.2021 of this Court, the
petitioners trespassed into the subject property on 19.11.2021
and demolished the industrial shed situated in the subject
property and carried away the machines and tools installed
therein. Ext.R4(c) are the photographs showing the illegal acts
committed by the petitioners in the subject property on
19.11.2021. Considering this fact, the interim order granted by
this court on 12.11.2021 was modified on 26.11.2021, stating
that the police would ensure the status quo with respect to the
respective building and property shall be maintained by both
sides. The said interim order was thereafter extended.
7. Admittedly, there is a dispute between the
petitioners and the contesting respondents 4 to 9 regarding the
W.P.(C) NO.25015 OF 2021
2024:KER:67519
property, which is the subject matter of one suit, i.e.,
O.S.No.1152 of 2021. The dispute with respect to the property
can only be adjudicated by the competent civil court, and this
court will grant no police protection for the protection of the
property which is the subject matter of a pending suit.
Therefore, the petitioners are not entitled to any police
protection from this court. It is made clear that the dispute with
respect to the property can only be decided by a competent civil
court.
Considering the above facts, the writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
BASANT BALAJI,
JUDGE
ss
W.P.(C) NO.25015 OF 2021
2024:KER:67519
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 25015/2021
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.1391/09 DATED
15.06.2009 OF NEMOM SUB REGISTRAR'S OFFICE EXECUTED
BY SRI.VALAPPAN ASARI IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONERS.
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT FOR THE YEAR 2021-
2022 FOR THE PROPERTY COVERED BY EXT.P1 SALE DEED.
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 16.02.2011 IN OS
NO.1947/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE 3RD ADDL.MUNSIFF
COURT OF THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 10.10.2018 IN OS
NO.1947/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE 3RD ADDL.MUNSIFF
COURT OF THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 26.10.2018 IN OS
NO.1579/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE 3RD ADDL.MUNSIFF
COURT OF THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT EVIDENCING THE PAYMENT OF
ELECTRICITY CHARGES DATED 20.10.2021.
Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING THE LIE AND
EXISTENCE OF THE SHED IN THE PROPERTY OF THE
PETITIONERS.
Exhibit P7(a) TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING THE LIE AND
EXISTENCE OF THE SHED IN THE PROPERTY OF THE
PETITIONERS.
Exhibit P7(b) TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING THE LIE AND
EXISTENCE OF THE SHED IN THE PROPERTY OF THE
PETITIONERS.
Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 23.10.2021 FILED BY
THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 23.10.2021 EVIDENCING
THE RECEIPT OF COMPLAINT FILED BY PETITIONERS BEFORE
THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
