Safia (through Power of Attorney Holder Muhammedali) v. District Collector, Malappuram; Tahsildar, Tirurangadi Taluk; Taluk Surveyor, Tirurangadi Taluk; Deputy Superintendent of Police, Malappuram; Station House Officer, Vengara Police Station; and others

1 W.A.No.1275 of 2023 ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANIL K. NARENDRAN** **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR FRIDAY, THE 21[ST] DAY OF JULY 2023 / 30TH ASHADHA, 1945 W.A.NO.1275 OF 2023** **AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 05.05.2023 IN WP(C)NO.40079/2022** **OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA** ## **APPELLANT/PETITIONER:** **SAFIA AGED 58 YEARS W/O ALAVIKUTTY HAJI, PAMANGATT CHEMBAYI, NADATHODIYIL HOUSE, PERUVALLUR.P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICTREPRESENTED BY HER POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER MUHAMMEDALI, AGED 61 YEARS, S/O PAREED, MUNDAKKAL THONNIPARAMB, KARUVANKALLU, PERUVALLURE, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 673638** **BY ADVS. SABU GEORGE P.B.KRISHNAN P.B.SUBRAMANYAN MANU VYASAN PETER** ## **RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:** - **1 DISTRICT COLLECTOR OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CIVIL STATION, MALAPPURAM, PIN - 676553** - **2 TAHASILDAR TIRURANGADI TALUK, TALUK OFFICE, TIRURANGADI, MALAPPURAM, PIN - 676306** - **3 TALUK SURVEYOR TIRURANGADI TALUK, TALUK OFFICE, TIRURANGADI, MALAPPURAM, PIN - 676306** - **4 DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, CIVIL STATION, MALAPPURAM, PIN - 676553** - **5 STATION HOUSE OFFICER VENGARA POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676304** - **6 MUHAMMED** 2 W.A.No.1275 of 2023 - **S/O LATE KOTTADAN AHMED KUTTY, TIRUR AMSOM, TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 673638** - **7 ALAVI S/O KOTTADAN AHMED KUTTY, TIRUR AMSOM, TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 673638** - **8 SOUDHA D/O KOTTADAN AHMED KUTTY, TIRUR AMSOM, TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 673638** - **9 FATHIMA D/O KOTTADAN AHMED KUTTY, TIRUR AMSOM, TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 673638** - **10 MAIMOONA D/O KOTTADAN AHMED KUTTY, TIRUR AMSOM, TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 673638** - **11 MOIDEEN S/O KOTTADAN AHMED KUTTY, TIRUR AMSOM, TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 673638** - **12 ASMABI D/O KOTTADAN AHMED KUTTY, TIRUR AMSOM, TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 673638** - **13 RASHEED S/O KOTTADAN AHMED KUTTY, TIRUR AMSOM, TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 673638** - **14 LAILABI D/O KOTTADAN AHMED KUTTY, TIRUR AMSOM, TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 673638 SRI T.K.SHAJAHAN - SR GOVERNMENT PLEADER** **THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21.07.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** 3 W.A.No.1275 of 2023 ## **JUDGMENT** ## **Anil K. Narendran, J.** The appellant filed W.P.(C)No.40079 of 2022, invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus commanding respondents 4 and 5, i.e., Deputy Superintendent of Police, Malappuram and Station House Officer, Vengara Police Station, to provide effective police protection to the life of the petitioner and other legal heirs of Late Alavikutty Haji, in respect of the property covered by Ext.P7 title deed dated 13.05.1966 and to direct the 2[nd] respondent Tahsildar, Tirurangadi Taluk and the 3[rd] respondent Taluk Surveyor, Tirurangadi to measure the property described in Ext.P3 application dated 17.10.2022 with adequate police protection. That writ petition ended in dismissal by the judgment dated 05.05.2023 of the learned Single Judge, which is under challenge in this writ appeal filed under Section 5 of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant, the learned Senior Government Pleader for respondents 1 to 5 and also the learned counsel for respondents 7 to 14. The 6[th] respondent is the brother-in-law of the appellant. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant would contend 4 ## W.A.No.1275 of 2023 that the reasoning of the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment for dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant seeking police protection is illegal, erroneous and unsustainable, which warrants interference in this writ appeal, in the exercise of the appellate jurisdiction of this Court under Section 5 of the Kerala High Court Act. 4. Per contra, the learned counsel for respondents 7 to 14 and the learned Senior Government Pleader for respondents 1 to 5 would contend that in the facts and circumstances of the case on hand, the learned Single Judge rightly declined interference, for the reasons stated in the impugned judgment. 5. The reasoning of the learned Single Judge in paragraph 9 of the impugned judgment dated 05.05.2023 reads thus; “9. The petitioner seeks police protection for measuring her share of property in the 1 Hectare 3 Ares 23 square metres of land covered by a title deed dated 13.05.1966. It is evident from the pleading that the property is involved in civil litigations. This Court has passed an order dated 09.03.2017 in R.P. No.906 of 2016 declaring that the petitioners therein will be entitled to moot their individual claims under Section 85(8) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. Claim Petition has been filed under Section 85(8), which involves the question of right and title over 2.55 Acres of land. Therefore, the title and ownership of the property 5 W.A.No.1275 of 2023 claimed by the petitioner are evidently in dispute. In such circumstances, it would be inappropriate for this Court to grant police protection to the petitioner to measure her property.” 6. According to the appellant, she is one of the coowners of the property covered by Ext.P7 title deed dated 13.05.1966, measuring 1 Hectare 3 Ares and 23 square metres, which is surrounded by Government puramboke. Respondents 6 to 14, who are residing in the nearby lands, are staking a claim on the Government puramboke land. The appellant wanted to sell her share of the property and hence submitted Ext.P3 application dated 17.10.2022 before the 3[rd] respondent Taluk Surveyor, to measure the property described in Ext.P7 title deed. In order to measure the property, the appellant has to clear the bushes and weeds in the property. When the appellant and her workers attempted to do so, respondents 6 to 14 caused obstruction. Therefore, seeking police protection for life and property, the appellant filed Ext.P1 complaint dated 11.11.2022 before the 5[th] respondent Station House Officer. Paragraphs 2 to 4 of that complaint read thus; "എന ന്റെ ഭർതത്താവന പരരേതനത്തായ അലവവികകുടവിയകുനടെ പവിതത്താവന പരരേതനത്തായ മകുഹമ്മദന ദന കകുടവി ഹത്താജവിയകുനടെ പകുതതനകുനും ടെവിയത്താന ന്റെ സസ്വതവിന ന്റെ ഏക അവകത്താശവിയകുമത്താണന. ടെവിയത്താന ന്റെ ഭത്താരേര കകുഞഞ്ഞീരേതകുമ്മ എന്നവർ 23.9.1997 ൽ അന്തരേവിചകു. 8.11.2001 ൽ അന്തരേവിച മകുഹമ്മദന കകുടവി ഹത്താജവിയകുനടെ ഏക മകൻ എന ന്റെ 6 W.A.No.1275 of 2023 ഭർതത്താവത്തായവിരേകുന്ന പരരേതനത്തായ അലവവികകുടവിയത്താണന. മകുകളവിൽ എഴകുതവിയ അഞകു മക്കൾ അവരേത്താണന. മരേവിചകു രപത്തായ ഭർതത്താവവിന ന്റെ ബത്താപ്പക്കന ഉള്ള സസ്വതവിൽ എനവിക് നും എന ന്റെ അഞകു മക്കൾക് നും അവകത്താശമകുള്ളതത്താണന. മകുഹമ്മദന കകുടവി ഹത്താജവിക്കന, കണ്ണമനുംഗലനും വവിരല്ലേജവിൽ, കത്താളവിനരക്കത്താടെന രദശനും, Sch.No.1/1, സർരവ നന.427 ൽ രേണകു ഏക്കർ 55 നസന ന ഭഭൂമവി 1996 നല തവിരേകുരേങത്താടെവി സബന നരേജവിസനതടെസനടെത്താന്റെത്താഫവിസവിൽ **ത** 1249/1996 ആനും നമ്പർ തഞ്ഞീന്റെത്താധത്താരേതപകത്താരേനും സവിദവിചതകുനും, ആധത്താരേ തഞ്ഞീയതവി 13.05.1966 എന്നതകുമത്താണന. ഈ വസസകുവവിനന ഞത്താനകുനും എന ന്റെ അഞകു മക്കളകുനും അവകത്താശവികളത്താണന. ഈ ഭഭൂമവിയവിൽ ഞത്താനകുനും പണവിക്കത്താരേകുനും കത്താടെകുപടെലങൾ നവടവിനതളവിക്കരവ പലതപത്താവശരവകുനും ഞങൾനക്കതവിനരേ ഇതവിനല തപതവികൾ നവിരേന്തരേനും ഭഞ്ഞീഷണവിണവിനപ്പടെകുതകുകയകുനും അതകമവിക്കത്താൻ വരേവികയകുനും നചെയസവിടകുണന എൻനന്റെ വഞ്ഞീടവിൽ ഞത്താനകുനും എൻനന്റെ നത്താലന മരേകുമക്കളകുനും മത്ാതരമ വഞ്ഞീടവിൽ ഉണത്താകത്താന്റെകുള്ളഭൂ. ആൺമക്കൾ വവിരദശതത്താണന. ഈ വസസകു സനുംബന്ധമത്തായ കത്താരേരങൾക്കത്തായവി ബന്ധകുവത്തായ മകുഹമ്മദലവി എന്ന വരകവിനയ ചെകുമതലനപ്പടെകുതവിയവിടകുണന. അവർക് നും കകുടെകുനുംബതവിതവിനകുനും ഭഞ്ഞീഷണവിയകുണന. ആയതവിനത്താൽ, ഞങൾക്കന ജഞ്ഞീവനകുനും സസ്വതകുക്കൾക് നും സനുംരേക്ഷണനും നൽകണനമന്നകുനും, ഇവരേകുനടെ ഭഞ്ഞീഷണവി രമലവിൽ തകുടെരേത് വിരേവിക്കത്താനകുമകുള്ള നടെപടെവികൾ സസ്വഞ്ഞീകരേവിക്കണനമന്നകുനും വവിനഞ്ഞീതമത്തായവി അരപക്ഷവിചകുനകത്താള്ളകുന്നകു.” 7. In the counter affidavit, respondents 7 to 14 contended that the property in question is involved in Ceiling Case CR No.373 of 1973 of the Taluk Land Board, Tirurangadi. In view of Ext.R7(a) order of this Court in CRP No.305 of 2010, the declarant in respect of the property was liable to surrender only 13.94 Acres of land. In RP No.906 of 2016 filed by the appellant and others, this Court declared that the order in CRP No.305 of 7 W.A.No.1275 of 2023 2010 will not stand in their way to moot their individual claim under Section 85(8) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. The appellant and others have filed a claim petition invoking Section 85(8) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act claiming their right over 2.55 Acres of land. The said claim petition is pending consideration before the Taluk Land Board. 8. In **St.George Tabore Church and others v. State of Kerala and others [2021 (1) KHC SN 1]** this Court held that, in order to seek police protection under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has to first approach the concerned Station House Officer with a proper complaint against those who are causing threat to the life and/or the property of the petitioner. Since a writ of mandamus can be granted only in a case where there is a failure on the part of that officer concerned to discharge the statutory obligation, in the complaint filed before the concerned Station House Officer, which is the foundation upon which a writ petition seeking police protection has been built, the petitioner has to disclose his legal right to compel performance of a statutory duty cast upon that authority. The said complaint should contain necessary pleadings. In case there is any failure on the part of the officer concerned in 8 ## W.A.No.1275 of 2023 discharging the statutory duty or obligation, the petitioner can approach this Court in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking appropriate reliefs, in which the State of Kerala, the officer concerned and also those who are causing threat to the life and/ or the property of the petitioner, as alleged in the said complaint, are to be arrayed as respondents. 9. In Ext.P1 complaint, which is the foundation upon which the writ petition for police protection has been built, the appellant-petitioner failed to disclose her legal right to compel performance of statutory duty by respondents 4 and 5 to provide police protection to the life of the petitioner and other legal heirs of late Alavikutty Haji, in respect of the property covered by Ext.P7 title deed. The averments in paragraphs 2 to 4 of Ext.P1 complaint, which we have reproduced hereinbefore at paragraph 6, would not even make out a case of law and order issue in the locality, warranting interference by the police. She has not even pointed out an instance in which she faced threat to her life from the hands of the party respondents. The dispute between the petitioner and party respondents in respect of the property covered by Ext.P7 title deed has to be resolved before the competent forum, where proceedings invoking the provisions 9 ## W.A.No.1275 of 2023 under the Kerala Land Reforms Act are pending. In case there is any obstruction from the side of the party respondents, the remedy open to the appellant is to approach the competent civil court seeking appropriate reliefs against them. In the result, we find no reason to interfere with the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 05.05.2023, whereby W.P.(C)No.40079 of 2022 stands dismissed for the reasons stated therein. This Writ Appeal fails and the same is accordingly dismissed; however, without prejudice to the right of the appellant to approach the competent civil court seeking appropriate reliefs against the party respondents. Sd/- ## **ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE** Sd/- ## **P.G. AJITHKUMAR, JUDGE** **yd**