IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 34654 of 2009(B)
1. M.R.VIMALA, D/O.RAJAMMAL,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
... Respondent
2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
3. PARAKUZHI SURENDRAN, S/O.SADASIVAN,
4. RENJITH, S/O.SAHADEVA PANICKER,
5. JESUDAS, S/O.GABRIEL,
6. NALINI, D/O.PONNAMMA,
7. CHANDRIKA, D/O.SANTHA,
For Petitioner :SRI. G. SUDHEER (KARAKONAM)
For Respondent :SRI.C.J.JOY
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.M.JOSEPH
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS
Dated :01/03/2010
O R D E R
K. M. JOSEPH &
M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ.
--------------------------------------------------
W.P(C). NO. 34654 OF 2009 B
---------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 1st March, 2010
JUDGMENT
K.M. Joseph, J.
Briefly put, the case of the petitioner is as follows:
Petitioner is the absolute owner of 64 = cents of property.
It is stated that the petitioner was away from the property. The
Balaramapuram Grama Panchayat trespassed into 3 cents of the
petitioner’s property and constructed a building as if it is
puramboke land. Petitioner filed a suit as OS.No.897/2005 for
declaration of title and recovery of the trespassed property. It is
stated that the defendant Panchayat contended that the
Panchayat is in possession of 90 cents and the Panchayat has
constructed Anganwadi building within the puramboke land and
that the defendant has not trespassed into plaint A schedule
property. The Advocate Commissioner measured out the
properties and found that the Anganwadi building constructed
by the Panchayat is within the property of the petitioner, and not
WPC.34654/2009 B 2
in the puramboke land. By Ext.P1 Judgment, the Suit was
decreed. The Panchayat filed Appeal with inordinate delay. In
the meantime, the petitioner filed E.P.No.75/2008. The ICDS
Officer who is in charge of the Anganwadi filed a claim petition
which was dismissed vide Ext.P2. The Execution Court ordered
delivery of plaint B schedule property, including the Anganwadi
building. Ext.P3 is the warrant. The defendant Panchayat
prevented the Amin physically and the learned Munsiff ordered
police protection (Ext.P4). Ext.P5 is the copy of the Kaichit and
Report of the Amin and Ext.P6 is the Kaichit prepared by the
Amin and signed by the petitioner while giving possession to the
petitioner. The Panchayat filed a Writ Petition challenging
Ext.P3. Thereafter, by Ext.P7 Judgment, the matter was closed.
The third respondent is the President of the Panchayat. He is a
member of the ruling CPM Party. Respondents 4 to 7 are stated
to be followers of the CPM Party. It is stated that respondents 3
to 7 are taking law into their own hands. Exts.P8 and P9 are the
petitions filed by the petitioner. It is also stated that earlier, the
WPC.34654/2009 B 3
petitioner’s mother had approached this Court, when
Notification was issued calling for quotation for taking usufructs
from the trees standing the property of the petitioner’s mother.
The Panchayat submitted that it has no claim over the said
property.
2. We heard Shri G. Sudheer, learned counsel for the
petitioner, Shri C.J. Joy, learned counsel representing
respondents 3 to 7 and also the learned Government Pleader.
Parties reiterate their contentions. A Counter Affidavit is filed.
3. Learned counsel for respondents 3 to 7 points out that
the Panchayat is not made a party, but he would submit that
respondents 3 to 7 are not obstructing the petitioner in the matter
of enjoyment of the property covered by Ext.P1 Judgment. He
would also submit that there is an Anganwadi functioning.
4. Learned Government Pleader also submits that there is
an Anganwadi functioning. We notice that in Ext.P5 the amin
has stated that the building in which the Anganwadi was
functioning, was handed over to the petitioner. Whatever that
be, learned counsel for respondents 3 to 7 does not claim any
WPC.34654/2009 B 4
right to obstruct the petitioner in the matter of enjoyment of the
property covered by Ext.P1. We record the submission and
dispose of the Writ Petition directing that in case respondents 3
to 7 obstruct the petitioner in the matter of enjoyment of the
property covered by Ext.P1, respondents 1 and 2 will provide
adequate protection to the petitioner against respondents 3 to 7.
Sd/=
K.M. JOSEPH,
JUDGE
Sd/=
M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS,
JUDGE
kbk. // True Copy //
PS to Judge