IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
RSA.No. 194 of 2008()
1. KELANKANDY AMMAD, S/O.MOIDEEN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. KELANKANDY KUNHAYISHA, D/O.MOIDEEN,
... Respondent
2. KELANKANDY AMINA, D/O.MOIDEEN,
3. THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
4. KELANKANDY PATHUMMU, W/O.LATE MOIDEEN,
For Petitioner :SRI.T.SETHUMADHAVAN
For Respondent :SRI.N.L.KRISHNAMOORTHY
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.KRISHNAMOORTHY (RETD. JUDGE)
SHRI K.N.SATHEESAN (RETD. DIST. JUDGE)
Dated :10/03/2010
O R D E R
? IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
+WP(C).No. 6828 of 2010(C)
#1. MARIAMMA JOHN,SHANTHI NIVAS,T.C.34/1573
... Petitioner
2. MARY THOMAS,JACKSON HOUSE,T.C.34/1573(3)
3. JULIAT AUGUSTIN,AILINE VIEW,
Vs
$1. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE,
... Respondent
2. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE,
3. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
4. MR.RUPESH,THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
5. JUSTIN JOHN,S/O.SAMUEL,JOHN FELIX,
! For Petitioner :SMT.M.HEMALATHA
^ For Respondent :SRI.G.SUDHEER
*Coram
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.M.JOSEPH
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS
% Dated :11/03/2010
: O R D E R
K. M. JOSEPH &
M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ.
————————————————–
W.P(C). NO. 6828 OF 2010 C
—————————————————
Dated this the 11th March, 2010
JUDGMENT
K.M. Joseph, J.
Petitioners have approached this Court against harassment
by police. Briefly put, the case of the petitioners is as follows:
Petitioners are in absolute possession and enjoyment of
10.174 cents of property in Survey No.1790 of of Palkulangara
Village. All the petitioners have constructed buildings and they
are residing in the respective houses. While so, the fifth
respondent purchased 38.750 cents of property on the western
side with an intention to annex a portion of the property of the
petitioners. Alleging that there is a pathway through the
property of the petitioners, the fifth respondent instituted a Suit
as OS.No.1955 of 2009 before the Munsiff Court,
Thiruvananthapuram for permanent prohibitory injunction
restraining the first petitioner and her husband from demolishing
the southern boundary wall of plaint B schedule property, from
WPC.NO.6828 OF 2010 C 2
annexing any portion of the plaint schedule properties and from
disturbing his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint
schedule properties. He obtained an ex parte order of
injunction. It is stated that the first petitioner and her husband
filed objection and it is pending consideration. On the basis of
the ex parte order of injunction, the fifth respondent is
influencing the Police Authorities, namely respondents 3 and 4
and they are unnecessarily harassing the petitioners. It is stated
that during December 2009, police came to the property and it
became a duly routine. The fifth respondent filed W.P.(C).
No.34955 of 2009 which was disposed of by Ext.P2 Judgment.
Therein, without prejudice to the right of the petitioner (fifth
respondent) to seek appropriate orders for enforcement of the
order of injunction in accordance with law, the Writ Petition was
closed. It is stated that on 26.02.2010, Ext.P3 notice was issued
by the fourth respondent directing the first petitioner to be
present before the police station with their vehicles and to
produce documents to show that they have the right to obstruct
WPC.NO.6828 OF 2010 C 3
the pathway. Petitioners filed Ext.P4 complaint.
2. We heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the
fifth respondent and the learned Government Pleader. Learned
counsel for the fifth respondent would submit that the matter is
pending consideration before the civil court and the Injunction
Application has been heard and the matter is posted for orders.
At present, admittedly, there is only an ex parte order. At any
rate, the Police Officers, namely respondents 3 and 4 cannot
interfere in the civil dispute between the petitioners and the fifth
respondent. Learned Government Pleader would submit that
there was an ex parte order of injunction and since there is an
allegation of violation of the ex parte order of injunction, Crime
No.135 of 2010 of Valiyathura Police Station is registered. In
such circumstances, the Writ Petition is disposed of as follows:
We are not pronouncing on the merits of the contentions
on the part of the petitioners on the one hand and the fifth
respondent on the other hand, which is pending consideration
before the civil court and the civil court will necessarily pass
orders on the basis of the materials produced and the law on the
WPC.NO.6828 OF 2010 C 4
point. Respondents 3 and 4 shall not interfere in the dispute
between the petitioner and the fifth respondent, as things stand.
There is no order for police protection by the civil court as of
now. At the same time, we make it clear that this Judgment will
not stand in the way of the investigation of Crime No.135 of
2010 of Valiyathura Police Station.
Sd/=
K.M. JOSEPH,
JUDGE
Sd/=
M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS,
JUDGE
kbk.
// True Copy //
PS to Judge