Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1054 (KER)

SREEKALA, KUTTAPPAN v. STATE OF KERALA

2012-12-04

K.HARILAL, K.M.JOSEPH

body2012
JUDGMENT K.M. Joseph, J. Petitioners have approached this Court seeking the following reliefs: "a) Respondents 1 to 5 be directed by a writ of mandamus or other order be passed directing respondents 1 to 5 to give adequate and effective police protection to the life and property of the petitioners from respondents 6 and 7 and their associates. b) Respondents 1 to 5 be directed to take necessary criminal action against respondents 6 and 7 and their associates for continuing their violent activities and for flouting Ext.P5 order of the civil court." 2. Briefly put, the case of the petitioners is as follows: First petitioner is the daughter of the second petitioner. First petitioner is in absolute possession and enjoyment of six cents of property bounded on all sides by specific boundaries and the second petitioner along with his wife is residing in the residential building situated in the said property. The said property is lying on the southern side of Aruvikara - Kachani Road and on the western side of a canal. While so, on 10.2.2012, when the neighbouring property owners tried to encroach into the property of the first petitioner, Ext.P1 suit was filed and Ext.P2 injunction order was obtained, which is still in force. On 5.5.2012, respondents 6 and 7 and their associates in large number trespassed into the aforesaid property and placed a statue of Sree Narayana Guru with ulterior motive. Even though complaints after complaints were submitted before the police authorities, no action has been taken by them due to which respondents 6 and 7 and their associates are continuing their criminal activities and are manhandling the second petitioner as he has filed complaints before the police. Left with no other alternative, the petitioners are before us. 3. We heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the party respondents 6 and 7 besides the learned Government Pleader. 4. Learned counsel for respondents 6 and 7 would submit that respondents 6 and 7 will not cause any threat to the life of the petitioners. 3. We heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the party respondents 6 and 7 besides the learned Government Pleader. 4. Learned counsel for respondents 6 and 7 would submit that respondents 6 and 7 will not cause any threat to the life of the petitioners. We record the said submission and dispose of the Writ Petition as follows: If the petitioners complain of any threat to their life from respondents 6 and 7 or their associates before the fifth respondent, the fifth respondent will look into it and if the complaint is found to be genuine, he will afford protection for the life of the petitioners as against them. We make it abundantly clear that this order of protection is only for the life of the petitioners and will not extend for the enjoyment of property rights and that is a matter which the petitioners should take before the appropriate forum and such forum will be free to decide the lis untrammeled by anything contained in this Judgment.