IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 19478 of 2009(D)
1. AKHILA BHARATHA AYYAPPA SEVA SANGHAM,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY SECRETARY,
... Respondent
2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
3. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
4. S.I.OF POLICE,
5. K.G.RATNA BAI,
6. R.BALACHANDRAN PILLAI,
7. R.MADHU,
For Petitioner :SRI.SAJU.S.A
For Respondent :SMT.T.S.MAYA (THIYADIL)
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.BHAVADASAN
Dated :23/07/2009
O R D E R
P.R.RAMAN & P.BHAVADASAN, JJ.
——————————————————–
WP(C) No.19478 OF 2009-D
——————————————————–
Dated 23rd July 2009
Judgment
BHAVADASAN, J.
This is a petition, seeking police protection against
respondents 5 to 7.
2. The petitioner claims to be the President of Akhila
Bharatha Ayyappa Seva Sanghom, which has taken 24 Ares of
land in RS No.614/9A and 614/9B of Pandalam village, from the
5th respondent. The property was taken on ground rent in 1964.
Since then, the Sanghom is in possession of the property. It is
submitted that during the sabarimala season, the devotees use
the place for taking rest. The office of the Sanghom is also
functioning in the said plot. The rent paid is Rs.300/- per month
for the office building and Rs.50,000/- per annum as ground
rent for the land. When respondents 5 and 6 with the help of the
7th respondent, tried to trespass into the above said property, a
suit was instituted as OS No.144/09. An ex parte interim
injunction was initially granted and thereafter, after hearing both
WPC 19478/09 2
sides, as per Ext.P3, the interim injunction was made absolute.
The grievance of the petitioner is that inspite of the interim
injunction granted by the court below, the party respondents are
trying to obstruct the peaceful enjoyment of the property by the
Sanghom. It is also alleged that the said respondents are trying
to forcibly dismantle the building situated in the plot.
3. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the 5th
respondent, denying the allegations in the Writ Petition. It is
pointed out that they have not taken law into their own hands.
They also say that the above property was given to the petitioner
under a licence and not under any lease agreement.
4. Whatever it may be, the petitioner has filed complaints
before the police. In the light of the fact that the interim
injunction has been obtained by the petitioner from the court
below, it is only appropriate that law and order is maintained in
the locality.
5. Therefore, this Petition is allowed and in the
circumstances of the case, there will be a direction to
respondents 3 and 4 to give adequate protection to the
WPC 19478/09 3
petitioner so as to enforce the order of injunction granted by the
court below, so long as it is in force. It is also directed that under
the guise of this order, the petitioner will not be entitled to make
any additional construction in the property except doing repair
works to the existing structure.
6. It was then pointed out that a CMA filed by the
respondents and a suit on the issue involved in the proceedings
are yet to be determined finally.
7. Therefore, the suit as well as the CMA pending, shall be
disposed of untrammelled by the observations contained in this
judgment. The 7th respondent pointed out that he is
unnecessarily impleaded and no order is sought against him.
The said submission is recorded. Whether the 7th respondent is
an unnecessary party, need not be decided now.
The Writ Petition is disposed of as above.
P.R.RAMAN, JUDGE
P.BHAVADASAN, JUDGE
WPC 19478/09 4
sta
WPC 19478/09 5