IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 12280 of 2008(J)
1. INDIRA RAVEENDRAN, T.C.4/1702,
... Petitioner
2. P.RAVEENDRAN PILLAI,
Vs
1. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
... Respondent
2. SUHARA BEEVI, D/O.KOCHUPATHUMAL,
3. KABEER, MELE PUTHEN VEEDU, KILLI,
4. PEERUM AHAMMED, S/O.KOCHUPATHUMAL,
For Petitioner :SRI.R.MANOJ
For Respondent :SRI.R.S.KALKURA
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.K.MOHANAN
Dated :02/12/2008
O R D E R
K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR &
V.K.MOHANAN, JJ.
-----------------------------------------
W.P.(C) NO. 12280 OF 2008-J
-----------------------------------------
Dated 2nd December, 2008.
JUDGMENT
Balakrishnan Nair, J.
The petitioners are husband and wife. They have purchased 10.5
cents of land in Sy.No.592/1-2 of Perumkulam Village from the 2nd
respondent, on 3.7.1996. Soon thereafter, on 6.7.1996, the said
respondent sold the property to a third party. On coming to know of the
above transaction, the petitioners filed O.S.No.619/1997 before the
Principal Munsiff’s Court, Nedumangad, to cancel that sale deed and
also seeking consequential reliefs. The said suit was decreed. The
court declared the title of the 1st plaintiff, who is the 1st petitioner herein
over the plaint schedule properties and the plaintiffs were permitted to
recover those properties through the process of the court. Though the
aforementioned property was sold to the petitioners on 3.7.1996, they
were not put in possession of the same. The petitioners submit, the
WPC 12280/08 2
Amin of the court took possession of the property having an extent of
10.5 cents, which is plaint A schedule item and delivered the same to
the petitioners and they were put in possession. Later, when the
petitioners tried to go to the property, they were physically obstructed
by the party respondents. The proposed buyer of the property was also
obstructed. Therefore, the petitioners filed Ext.P3 petition before the
1st respondent C.I of Police, seeking necessary protection for them to
enter the property. They also filed Ext.P4 complaint before the Judicial
First Class Magistrate’s Court, Kattakkada against the party
respondents, alleging various offences under the Penal Code, including
under Sections 415, 418, 420 etc. The learned Magistrate forwarded
the complaint to the Kattakkada Police under Section 156(3) of the
Cr.P.C. Thereupon, the police registered a crime against the accused
mentioned therein. In the above factual background, this Writ Petition
is filed, seeking the following relief:
“(i) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other
appropriate writ, direction or order, commanding the 1st
respondent to afford adequate and meaningful police
protection to the petitioners and their property covered by
Exts.P1 & P1(a) [sic – P2(a)].”
WPC 12280/08 3
During the pendency of the writ petition, the 2nd petitioner again filed
Ext.P5 petition before the police, seeking necessary protection to enter
the property mentioned above. Alleging that the police did not take
any effective action, this Writ Petition is filed.
2. The learned Government Pleader, upon instructions, submitted
that even now the erstwhile owners are in possession of the property,
though, technically, the petitioners were put in possession by the civil
court. The police cannot interfere to evict the persons in possession of
a property. It is a civil dispute. So, the police did not interfere, it is
submitted.
3. We heard the learned counsel for respondents 2 and 3.
According to him, the sale in question was a sale as security for the
loan amount received by the said respondents from the petitioners.
That is why the said respondents always continued in possession of the
property.
4. In this jurisdiction, we are concerned only with the failure of
duty from the part of the police. In other words, our powers are co-
terminous with the breach of duty of the police. Having regard to the
WPC 12280/08 4
facts of the case, we feel that the police have no authority to peruse the
documents of both sides, hear them and then, on finding that the
petitioners are entitled to retain possession of the property, come to
their aid and throw out the party respondents from the building in their
possession. We notice that there is no statute in force in India, which
authorises the police to venture to take such steps. Only the civil court
can do that. So, the petitioners may approach the civil court for
appropriate orders. The said court can address the police to render
assistance to the petitioners to enforce its orders. In view of the above
position, this Writ Petition is dismissed without prejudice to the
contentions of the petitioners and their right to move other forums for
appropriate reliefs.
K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE.
V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE.
Nm/