Thanveer Ahamed. B vs District Police Chief, Kannur Office Of The District Police Chief, Thavakkara, Kannur, Pin 670001

Anu Sivaraman, J

This writ petition is filed seeking the following relief:

“i) Issue a writ of mandamus or such other writ or order directing the respondent Nos.1 and 2 to provide adequate and appropriate police protection to the petitioner for entering into, his property, enjoying the same, constructing any compound wall to protect the property as against the respondents 3 and 4 and their men or agents.”

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader as well as the learned counsel appearing for respondents 3 and 4.

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is the owner in possession of 1 Acre and 80 Cents of land in Re-Survey No.587 in Cheruthazaham Village purchased by Exhibit P1 assignment deed. It is submitted that the predecessors in interest of the petitioner who are Girijavally and 5 others had filed a suit against respondents 3 and 4 before the Munsiff Court, Payyannur as O.S.No.191 of 2008 for declaration of title and permanent prohibitory injunction. The said suit was decreed by Exhibit P2 decree. It is submitted that after purchasing the property by Exhibit P1 deed, when the petitioner visited the site, respondents 3 and 4 obstructed the petitioner and threatened with serious consequences. Though complaint was made before the police, no steps were taken thereon. It is contended that the petitioner cannot be driven to the civil court, time and time again for the same reliefs.

A detailed counter affidavit has been placed on record by respondents 3 and 4, wherein it is contended that there is absolutely no violation of Exhibit P2 decree granted by the competent civil court by respondents 3 and 4 or anybody else. It is submitted that the father of respondents 3 and 4 had obtained 4 Acres and 33 cents of land by Exhibit R3(a) marupattom deed executed in the year 1956 and Exhibit R3(b) purchase certificate was also issued. Later, after the demise of the father, the mother and children including respondents 3 and 4 had partitioned the property by Exhibit R3(c) partition deed dated 15.07.2008. It is submitted that the 3rd respondent is holding G schedule property in Exhibit R3(c), while the 4th respondent is holding D schedule property in Exhibit R3(c). It is further contended that an appeal had been preferred against Exhibit P2 and there was a compromise in the appeal. It is submitted that it is not in respect of the properties covered by Exhibit P2 decree that there is a dispute and that the petitioner had encroached into the properties belonging to respondents 3 and 4, which was the reason why there was an attempt to resist the illegal acts of the petitioner. It is submitted that Exhibit R3(d) complaint had been submitted as early as on 19.08.2022 and the petitioner had filed a Caveat Petition No.28 of 2022 before the Munsiff Court, Payyannur as early as on 24.08.2022. It is submitted that thereafter, respondents 3 and 4 and the other sharers in Exhibit R3(c) had filed O.S.No.174 of 2022 on 02.09.2022 with the petitioner herein as the 1st defendant. It is contended that all these facts were willfully suppressed by the petitioner and the attempt is only to mislead this Court and obtain undue advantage without reference to the suit pending before the civil court.

Having considered the contentions advanced, I notice that there is a clear dispute raised with regard the identity of the property where the alleged trespass has occurred. Though the petitioner is evidently entitled to the fruits of Exhibit P2 decree, the question whether the property covered by Exhibit P2 is the very same property where the dispute has occurred is a pure question of fact, which cannot be decided by this Court in these proceedings. Though the 3rd respondent contends that an appeal from Exhibit P2 resulted in a compromise, no material is produced in evidence of the said contention. In view of the fact that the parties had already joined issues before the civil court, I am of the opinion that the question with regard to the identity of the property in question has to be resolved by means known to law.

In the above view of the matter, I am of the opinion that the prayer for police protection, as sought for cannot be granted. However, the police shall see that the law and order is maintained and there is no obstruction to the peaceful life of the petitioner.

Writ petition is ordered accordingly.