WA No. 1569 of 2021 (SASI v. LOVELY & ORS)

## **(CR)** ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS** ## **&** **THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN TUESDAY, THE 21[ST] DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 31ST JYAISHTA, 1944 WA NO. 1569 OF 2021** **JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 8675/2020 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA** ## **APPELLANT/ADDITIONAL RESPONDENT 4 IN THE WP(C):** SASI, AGED 60 YEARS S/O AYYAPPAN, AIKKARASSERY HOUSE, THENGODE.P.O, THRIKKAKARA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682030. BY ADVS. P.CHANDRASEKHAR K.K.MOHAMED RAVUF ## **RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS IN THE WP(C) & RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3** ## **IN THE WP(C):** 1 LOVELY, W/O JIMMY, KATTIKKARAN HOUSE, VADUTHALDESAM, VADUTHALA.P.O, PO-682033, CHERAMELLORE VILLAGE-ERNAKULAM. - *2 * JIMMY, AGED 68 YEARS, S/O JACOB, KATTIKARAN HOUSE, VADUTHALA DESOM, VADUTHALA.P.O, 682023, CHERAMELLOR VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM. - REPORTED THAT HE DIED ON 7/5/2021. WA NO. 1569 OF 2021 - 3 ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, THRIKKAKARA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682021. - 4 THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THRIKKAKARA POLICE STATION, THRIKKAKARA, ERNAKULAM,KOCHI-682021. 5 SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THRIKKAKARA POLICE STATION, THRIKKAKARA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682021. ADDL.R6 LIMMY K.J., AGED 35 YEARS,W/O.LINTO FRANCIS,VALIYAPARAMBIL HOUSE,POOZHITHODU FERRY ROAD,SOUTH CHITTOOR P.O., CHERANALLOOR VILLAGE,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT,PIN:682 023. ADDL.R7 LIMIJITH K.J., AGED 29 YEARS,S/O.LATE JIMMY,KATTIKARAN HOUSE,VADUTHALA DESOM,VADUTHALA P.O.,CHERANALLOOR VILLAGE,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT,PIN-682 023. *ADDITIONAL R6 & R7 ARE SUO MOTU IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 21.6.2022 IN W.A.1569/21. BY ADVS. SABU THOZHUPPADAN ANTONY VARGHESE BIJU THOZHUPPADAN DEVI P. PRATHAPAN AJWIN P LALSON ## **OTHER PRESENT:** SRI. SAIGY JACOB PALATTY-SR.GP THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21.06.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WA NO. 1569 OF 2021 ..1.. ## **'CR'** ## ALEXANDER THOMAS & SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN, JJ. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- ## WA No. 1569 of 2021 [ _arising out of the impugned judgment dated 24.03.2021 in WP(C) No.8675/2020_ ] ---------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 21[st] day of June, 2022 ## **JUDGMENT** ## ALEXANDER THOMAS, J. The impugned judgment dated 24.03.2021 rendered by the learned Single Judge in the instant Writ Petition (Civil) WP(C).No.8675/2020 is the subject matter of challenge in this intra court appeal filed under Sec.5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958. 2. The appellant herein is the additional 4[th] respondent in the writ petition. Respondents 1 & 2 in the writ appeal are the writ petitioners. Official respondents 3 to 5 in the writ appeal are the official respondents 1 to 3 in the writ petition. 3. The impugned judgment in the writ petition has been rendered on 24.03.2021. The instant writ appeal has been filed on 23.11.2021. It is reported by the learned counsel appearing for WA NO. 1569 OF 2021 ..2.. respondents 1 & 2 that the 2[nd] respondent herein (the 2[nd] writ petitioner) has died on 07.05.2021. The legal representatives of the deceased 2[nd] respondent herein have already been brought on record. 4. Heard Sri.P.Chandrasekhar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant in the writ appeal/additional 4[th] respondent in the writ petition; Sri.Sabu Thozhuppadan, learned counsel appearing for respondents 1, 6 & 7; and Sri.Saigi Jacob Palatty, learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for official respondents 3 to 5 in the writ appeal. ## 5. The prayers in the instant writ petition are as follows; _“(a) Issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to respondents 1 to 3 to afford adequate and effective police protection to the petitioners, their employees and vehicles from the threat of Sasi and his men and agents for demolishing the two existing sheds in Exhibit P1 and P2 property and also for putting up fencing on all the boundaries of the said property._ _(b) Direct respondents 1 to 3 to take appropriate action against the obstructers, in accordance with law, for committing the illegal and unlawful obstruction causing loss, destruction and damage to the petitioners._ _(c) Granting such other writ, order or direction which this Honourable Court deems it fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”_ WA NO. 1569 OF 2021 ..3.. 6. For reasons only known to the writ petitioners, additional 4[th] respondent was only subsequently impleaded. 7. A brief reference to the facts of the case would be pertinent. According to the 1[st] writ petitioner, she is the owner in title and possession of an extent of 12.750 cents, which was acquired by her as per Exts.P1 & P2 sale deeds executed and registered in the year 1986, and she had effected mutation and has been paying tax. That, the appellant herein and another person, by name Sri.Johny, have trespassed into the property and put up temporary sheds and they started to reside there. Thereupon, the petitioners have filed OS No. 151/2009, in which the said Sri.Johny is the defendant, and OS No.152/2009, in which the appellant herein (Sasi) is the defendant, seeking for recovery of trespassed possession from the respective defendants. While so, the petitioners and the appellant (Sasi) had entered into a compromise in respect of the dispute in OS No.152/2009 on the file of the Sub Court, Ernakulam in terms of a Lok Adalat settlement as per the Legal Services Authorities Act. This culminated in Ext.P3 award WA NO. 1569 OF 2021 ..4.. dated 03.12.2010 issued by the Adalat, whereby the petitioners have agreed to assign 3 cents of property on the western side of the plaint schedule property in favour of the appellant herein (Sasi) for a total consideration of Rs.3 lakh and a sum of Rs.5,000/- was paid by the appellant to the petitioners as advance sale consideration. Further, the appellant (Sasi) is stated to have agreed to hand over possession of the trespassed property to the petitioners within a period of six months from the date of execution of the decree in OS No.151/2009 filed by the 1[st] petitioner against the aforesaid Johny. 8. The terms and conditions of Ext.P3 award in relation to OS No.152/2o09, in which the appellant (Sasi) is the defendant, read as follows; “1. അന��യ� എ പട�ക വസ വഹകള�ട� പ��ഞ�റ�ഭ�ഗത� ട�ക�വ�ക�യ� വഴ� ഉൾട ട മ"ന� ട$ന�റ� വസ വഹകൾ (മ"ന� ട$ന�റ� വസ വ�ൽ വഴ�യ�� ഉൾട ���) മ"ന� ലക� ര"പയ�ക� വ�ദ�കൾ പപ��കക� പപ�� ന�ർക-ശ�ക�നവർകക� �/റ�യ� നൽക�ടമന� $മ��ച�ര�ക�ന�. പപ��കയ� പപ�� ന�ർക-ശ�ക�നവകര� �/ വസ �/ടറ��ത� ടക�ള�ടമന�� $മ��ച�ര�ക�ന�. 2. �/ർതത�ന�ടറ അഡ5�ൻ$�യ� ഇകനദ�വ$� (അയ�യ�ര�) ര"പ പപ��യ�ൽ ന�ന�� വ�ദ�കൾ കക റ�യ�ര�ക�ന�. 3. �/റ� ക�ല�വധ� ഇന�മ��ൽ ആറ� മ�$കമ�, പപ��കൾക� �/റ�ടക���കകണ വസ എറണ�ക�ള� $ബ� കക����യ�ടല ഒ.എ$�. 151/09 ന�ടറ വ�ധ�പപക�ര� �� സലത�ള പ�ര WA NO. 1569 OF 2021 ..5.. ടപ�ള�ച� മ�റ� വ�ദ�കൾക� കകവശ� ലഭ�ക�ന �/യ�� കഴ�ഞ� മ"ന� മ�$കമ� ഏ��യ�ര�ക�� അവ$�ന� $�ഭവ�ക�ന�� അ��യ�ര�ക��. വ�ദ�കൾ പപ��കൾക� �/റ� നൽക�ന $മയ� �� സലത�ന�ടറ കകവശ� പപ��കടള ഏൽ �കകണ��ക�ന�. ആ മ�റയ�ക� പപ��യ�ട� കകവശത�ല�ര�ക�ന അന��യ� ബ� പട�ക വസ വ�ൽ ന�ന�� പപ��യ�� ക����ബവ�� ��മ$� മ�റ� വ�ദ�കടള കകവശ� ഏലD�കകണ��ക�ന�. 4. അന��യ പട�കവസ വ�ൽ ടപട വസ വഹകൾ പപ��ക� �/റ� നൽക�ന $മയ� ഇന� അഡ5�ൻ$�യ� വ�ങ�യ 5000/ര"പ കഴ�ച� ബ�ക� �/ർത� 2,95,000/- (രണ� ലകത� ട��ണ"റ� അയ�യ�ര�) ര"പ ടGക�യ�� പപ�� വ�ദ�കൾക� നൽക�ന��� ആയ�� മ"ന�മ�$ത�ന� കശഷ� വ�ദ�കൾ കളകൻ അയക�ന��മ�ക�ന�. 5. എടIങ�ല�� ക�രണവശ�ൽ ഓ.എ$�.151 /2009 ൽ ടപട വസ വ�ദ�കൾക� കകവശ� ലഭ�ക�ട� വന�ൽ അന��യ� ബ� പട�കയ�ൽ വ�വര�ക�ന വസ വ�ൽ ന�ന�� വ�ദ�കൾക� യ�ക� കപ�ടല വഴ� ഉൾട ട 3 ട$ന�റ� വസ വഹകൾ 3,00,000/- ര"പയ�ക� വ�ദ�കൾ പ��കൾ �/റ� നൽകകണ��ണ�. 6. കമൽ $"G� �ച വ�വസകൾ പ�ല�ക�ന�� വടര പപ��ക�� ക����ബത�ന�� ഇക �ൾ ��മ$�ക�ന പ�രയ�ൽ ��മ$�ക�ന��ന�ള അവക�ശവ�� അധ�ക�രവ�� ഉണ�യ�ര�ക�ന��ണ�. 7. കമൽ $"G� �ച $മയത�ന�ള�ൽ �ടന വ�ദ�കൾ �/റ� ടക���കകണ വ�ഹക�ർ അള �ച� വ�സ�/ർണ� പപ��ടയ കബ�ദ�ട ��കതണ��� വഹകടള $�ബന�ക�ന ആധ�ര�, മ�ന�ധ�ര�, കകവശ�വക�ശ $ർട�ഫ�കറ�, കപ�ക�വരവ� ന�ത� �ന�ണ� വടര കര� �/ർത ര$/��, 15 വർഷടത ബ�ദ��കൾ ഇടPന� ക�ണ�ക�ന $ർട�ഫ�കറ� ���ങ� ആധ�ര� �യ�റ�ക�ൻ ആവശ�മ�യ എP� കരഖകള�ട�യ�� കക� �കൾ ആധ�ര� �യ�റ�ക�ൻ ആവശ�മ�യ എP� കരഖകള�ട�യ�� കക� �കൾ ആധ�ര� �യ�റ�ക�ന��കലക�യ� പപ��കടള ഏൽ �കകണ��ക�ന�. ഈ കര�ർ പപക�ര� വ�ദ�കകള� പപ��കകള� പപവർത�ക���ര�ന�ൽ ഇര�കക�കൾക�� കക���� മ�കഖന യ�കമ�യ ന�യമന�പ��കൾ $5/കര�ക�വ�ന��ക�ന�. WA NO. 1569 OF 2021 ..6.. 9. Further that, subsequently, OS No.151/2009 filed by the petitioners against Sri.Johny as defendant has been decreed in favour of the petitioners as per Annexure R1(a) judgment dated 07.12.2013 in OS No.151/2009. That, without seeking for execution of Ext.P3 compromise award of the Lok Adalat, by treating it as a compromise award in terms of the provisions contained in the Legal Services Authorities Act, the petitioners again filed a suit as OS No.1273/2015 before the First Additional Munsiff Court, Ernakulam, seeking for recovery of possession and permanent prohibitory injunction in respect of the same subject property as against the appellant herein, Sasi. The said suit, OS No.1273/2015, has been dismissed by the Munsiff's Court as per Annexure R4(d) judgment dated 04.02.2019 mainly on the ground that after securing Ext.P3 compromise award in the first suit, such a second suit is not maintainable and that the remedy of the petitioners herein is to seek execution of Ext.P3 award by approaching the competent civil court for such execution proceedings. Thereafter, the petitioners have preferred Ext.P4 execution petition, as EP WA NO. 1569 OF 2021 ..7.. No.56/2019 in OS No.152/2009, before the Court of Subordinate Judge, Ernakulam on 24.02.2019. The main prayer in Ext.P4 EP filed by the petitioners is prayer No.(b) thereof, which reads as follows; _“(b) Issue delivery notice to the judgment debtor and thereafter depute an amin directing him to dismantle and remove the shed put up by the judgment debtor in the plaint B schedule property and to effect delivery of the plaint B schedule property after vacating the judgment debtor and his family from the plaint B schedule property and put the decree holders in actual physical possession of the same.”_ 10. Thereafter, it is the case of the petitioners that, Ext.P4 execution proceedings have been duly completed and finalized by the execution court as evident from Ext.P8 with the aid of the police and that the appellant herein (Sasi) was evicted from the trespassed property in question, which has been marked as plot A in the sketch prepared by the Advocate Commissioner appointed in the EP (the sketch referred to in Ext.P5 commission report filed in the EP). There is some amount of confusion in the description of the properties inasmuch as the Commissioner in the EP has chosen to mark the properties as plot A, C & B, whereas the plaint schedule in OS No.152/2009 speaks about plaint A schedule WA NO. 1569 OF 2021 ..8.. property and plaint B schedule property. We need not get into the details of the same and for the sake of clarity, we would refer to the property vis-a-vis, on the basis of which it has been marked as plots C, A & B by the Advocate Commissioner in the EP. 11. It is the case of the petitioners that the property marked as plot B in the Advocate Commissioner's report is the property that is to be assigned to the appellant (Sasi) and the property marked as plot A in the Advocate Commissioner's report is the one, from which he has to be evicted, as per Ext.P3 compromise award. In other words, it appears that, as per the scheme of Ext.P3 compromise, the properties marked as plot A & C should be with the petitioners and the property marked as plot B is the one that is to be assigned to the appellant (Sasi). 12. The further case of the petitioners is that though Ext.P4 execution proceedings have been duly completed, interference of the appellant (Sasi) is still continuing inasmuch as the petitioners were obstructed when they tried to demolish the building/hutment said to have been put up by the appellant (Sasi) in plot A. Hence, the petitioners approached this Court by filing the instant writ WA NO. 1569 OF 2021 ..9.. petition seeking police protection on the premise that the civil litigation has already been concluded by Ext.P3 compromise award and the execution proceedings thereof in terms of Ext.P4 has also been duly finalized and completed by the execution court inasmuch as steps in that regard including for delivery of the property have been duly completed with the aid of the police by the execution court as per Ext.P8 report. Further that, still the appellant has obstructed the petitioners from demolishing the building/hutment put up by the appellant in plot A even though he was evicted from plot A _(supra)._ Accepting this factual premise that the execution proceedings have been duly completed, the learned Single Judge has granted the prayer for police protection with the following findings and directions as per paras 8 & 9 of the impugned judgment, which read as follows; _“8. This is a case in which the civil rights of the parties have been determined and the property was delivered by Amin through the process of court as is evident from Ext.P8 delivery warrant. The records reveal that the Execution Court has closed the petition recording that delivery is effected. The judgment of the Civil Court is binding on the party respondent and if he is in any way aggrieved, he can only approach the jurisdictional court to overturn the same. No such circumstances have arisen in this case. In that view of the matter, the contentions now advanced by the party respondent_ WA NO. 1569 OF 2021 ..10.. _cannot be accepted. If any obstruction is caused and the petitioners file a complaint before the police, they are duty bound to interfere and uphold the rule of law._ _9. At this stage, Sri.P.P.Thajudeen, the learned Government Pleader submitted that the Assembly Elections are down the corner and prays that some time be granted to the respondents 2 and 3 to respond to the complaint filed by the petitioners. Sri. Balagopalan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, submitted that the petitioners are planning to set out the property in the 2nd week of April, 2021 and if any obstruction is caused by the party respondent, they shall approach the police with a complaint. In that view of the matter, if any complaint is received, the respondents 2 and 3 shall afford effective protection to the petitioners, their agents and employees to enter their property and also for demolishing the sheds and also for putting up fencing after obtaining permits, if any, from the statutory authorities.”_ 13. We have heard both sides in detail. We have already noted that the main prayer in Ext.P4 execution petition as prayer No.(b) thereof was to issue delivery notice to the judgment debtor (appellant) and thereafter to depute an amin directing him to dismantle and remove the shed put up by the judgment debtor in plaint B schedule property, which appears to be plot A ( _supra),_ and to effect delivery of the plaint B schedule property [plot A ( _supra)_ ] after vacating the judgment debtor and his family from the plaint B WA NO. 1569 OF 2021 ..11.. schedule property [plot A ( _supra)_ ] and put the decree holders in actual possession of the same. Hence, the cardinal prayer in the main plea is to depute the amin to ensure the dismantling and removal of the shed said to have been put up by the judgment debtor in plot A ( _supra_ ) and then to effect delivery of the plot A property ( _supra_ ) after vacating the judgment debtor (appellant) and his family from the said plot A ( _supra_ ) and to put up the decree holders in actual physical possession. 14. The appellant has produced Annexure A, which is a series of orders passed by the execution court in Ext.P4 execution proceedings. Annexure A(31) is a copy of the e-court record in relation to the order dated 15.02.2020 passed by the execution court (First Additional Sub Judge, Ernakulam) in the above said Ext.P4 (EP No.56/2019) arising out of OS No.152/2009. The order dated 15.02.2020 produced at Annexure A(31) would indicate that on that day, it is recorded that the decree holder was represented and there was no representation for the judgment debtor and the claim petition has already been dismissed and, so, now the delivery can be ordered and hence, the judgment debtor was directed to WA NO. 1569 OF 2021 ..12.. hand over vacant possession of plot A to the decree holder on 17.02.2020. Further, the judgment debtor was directed to shift his home hold articles to plot B. The next hearing date mentioned therein is 17.02.2020. On 17.02.2020, the case was not called as the Judge was on leave and the same was adjourned to 18.02.2020 as evident from Annexure A(32). Annexure A(33) is the copy of the order dated 18.02.2020 passed in Ext.P4 EP, which reads as follows; _“Effect delivery through court on 19/2/2020. The SHO Thrikkakara is directed to assist Amin. For report 20.02.2020.”_ 15. All the other further orders of the execution court would show that further steps were taken to evict the judgment debtor (appellant) from plot A ( _supra_ ) with the aid of the police. These aspects are also discernible from Ext.P8. From a perusal of these proceedings, it appears that no specific steps or action has been taken by the execution court for grant of the first limb of the main prayer in Ext.P4 EP, i.e., for dismantling and removal of the shed. On the other hand, what is seen is that the execution court has granted only the second limb of the main prayer in Ext.P4 EP, WA NO. 1569 OF 2021 ..13.. i.e., eviction of the judgment debtor from the subject property, plot A ( _supra_ ), and he was also directed to shift his home hold articles to plot B ( _supra_ ) as mentioned above. 16. True, that the records would also indicate that delivery of plot A ( _supra_ ) has also been rendered by the execution court on 25.02.2020 with the aid of the police. We specifically queried both sides, particularly, the learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondents 1, 6 & 7/writ petitioners, as to whether any action or step has been taken by the execution court to grant the first limb of the main prayer No.(b) of Ext.P4 EP in the matter of demolition and removal of the shed, said to have been constructed by the judgment debtor in plot A property ( _supra_ ). It is candidly stated before us by the learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioners that no steps or action in that regard for dismantling and removing the shed has been effectuated by the execution court in the proceedings at Annexure A or in Ext.P8, whereas on the other hand, it is seen that after the eviction and delivery of the subject property at plot A on 25.02.2020, the execution court has closed the EP on 26.02.2020 as evident from Annexure A (36). So, in WA NO. 1569 OF 2021 ..14.. other words, it is without duly completing the execution proceedings regarding the first limb of prayer No.(b) of Ext.P4 EP that the petitioners have approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with the plea that the execution proceedings have been duly completed and still further, the judgment debtor (appellant) is obstructing them. However, it is interesting to note that even in respect of that pleading, the case put up in the writ petition is that when the petitioners have gone to plot A property on 27.02.2020 (i.e., the day after the closure of the EP on 26.02.2020) in order to demolish the above said shed/hutment in plot A, the judgment debtor (appellant) had obstructed them and therefore, police protection be granted. In other words, the said pleading of the writ petitioners would itself make it clear that they have admitted that the removal or dismantling of the shed/building, which is said to have been obstructed by the appellant in plot A property ( _supra_ ), was never duly completed by the execution court in Ext.P4 EP. On the other hand, the petitioners are seeking the aid of the writ court in completing the unfinished tasks of the execution court. That, WA NO. 1569 OF 2021 ..15.. according to us, cannot be an acceptable approach, availing the discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 17. It is, by now, settled that where the civil litigation between the disputants has been duly finalized by the civil court and the civil appellate courts and execution proceedings have also been finalized and completed in the manner known to law and the subject property has been duly delivered in such execution proceedings and if thereafter, the judgment debtor/unsuccessful defendant still tries to obstruct or causes illegal interference in the enjoyment of the subject property, then, the discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the matter of police protection is to be considered. See _**Illyas**_ v. _**State of Kerala**_ [2014 (4) KLT 362 (FB)] & _**Baby**_ v. _**Deputy Superintendent of Police**_ [2019 (4) KLT 12 (DB)] . 18. In the instant case, even going by the admitted pleadings of the writ petitioners, the prime plea, as per the first limb of prayer No.(b) of Ext.P4 EP, was not effectuated and completed by the execution court inasmuch as the first limb was WA NO. 1569 OF 2021 ..16.. overlooked and only the second limb thereof in the matter of eviction and delivery of the property alone has been done. That being so, it is not right and proper for the writ court to exercise a discretion when the materials and the pleadings of the petitioners would clearly show that the main limb of the prayer before the execution court for the removal and dismantling of the subject shed/building put up in plot A property ( _supra_ ) was never duly completed or finalized by the execution court in the manner known to law. The constitutional court, in exercise of its powers conferred in the discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot be substituted to carry out the unfinished agendas and tasks of the Execution Court in civil litigation proceedings. That approach is certainly against the basic canons of exercise of discretionary jurisdiction in public law remedy, more so particularly, in police protection pleas arising out of civil litigation matters. This aspect of the matter has not been duly taken note of in rendering the impugned judgment. The fact that the main limb of prayer No.(b) of Ext.P4 EP was not duly completed by the execution court as evident from the admitted WA NO. 1569 OF 2021 ..17.. pleadings in the writ petition as mentioned above, has not been duly taken into account. Hence, the matter would require interdiction. Hence, we are of the view that the grant of police protection in this case as ordered in the impugned judgment in the writ petition was not reasonable and proper. 19. The main plea in the writ proceedings to direct the grant of police protection for ensuring removal and dismantling of the building/shed put up by the appellant/judgment debtor in Plot A property ( _supra)_ , etc. is not liable to be entertained in this writ proceedings. This is for the simple reason that the said plea in the W.P.(C). was also the first limb of the main prayer No. (b) of Ext.P4 EP, which was not effectuated by the execution court, and only the eviction of the appellant/judgment debtor from Plot A and its delivery were effected by the execution court. So, the impugned judgment in the W.P.(C). to the extent it directs grant of police protection for removal and dismantling the building/shed put up by the appellant in Plot A property ( _supra)_ , is liable to be interdicted in this appellate proceedings. However, the fact of the matter is that the execution court has duly finalised and completed WA NO. 1569 OF 2021 ..18.. the process of evicting the appellant/judgment debtor from Plot A property ( _supra)_ and such duly completed process cannot be disturbed or upset by the appellant/judgment debtor. 20. However, Sri.P.Chandrasekhar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, would fairly submit, on the basis of instructions of his party, that the appellant would undertake that he will not encroach or trespass into plot A property ( _supra_ ), from which he has already been evicted. The undertaking is recorded. 21. So, it is ordered and directed that in case the appellant/judgment debtor again encroaches or trespasses into Plot A property ( _supra),_ from where he has already been evicted by the execution court, then, the competent respondent police authorities, on a request made by respondents 1, 6 & 7 herein, shall grant police protection to ensure that such encroachment and trespass, that may be made by the appellant/judgment debtor in plot A property ( _supra),_ is duly removed and evicted. We are issuing the above direction by placing reliance on the dictum laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in the aforesaid cases, viz., _**Illyas'**_ case ( _supra)_ [2014 (4) KLT 362 (FB)] & _**Baby**_ 's case WA NO. 1569 OF 2021 ..19.. ## ( _supra)_ [2019 (4) KLT 12 (DB)]. 22. Sri.Sabu Th0zhuppadan, learned counsel appearing for respondents 1, 6 & 7 herein, would submit, on the basis of the instructions of his parties, that those parties will immediately approach the execution court for the reopening of Ext.P4 EP proceedings or for appropriate remedies so that the plea in the first limb of prayer No.(b) of Ext.P4 EP for removing and dismantling of the building/shed put up by the appellant/judgment debtor in plot A property ( _supra)_ is effectuated, with the aid of the Police. Liberty is accorded to respondents 1, 6 & 7 to work out their remedies in that regard before the execution court or such other appropriate remedies in accordance with law. 23. Sri.Sabu Th0zhuppadan, learned counsel appearing for respondents 1, 6 & 7 herein, would also submit, on the basis of instructions, that his parties are seriously interested to ensure mediated settlement of the disputes between them and the appellant/judgment debtor and such pleas will also be made by them before the execution court. Sri.P.Chandrasekhar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that his party WA NO. 1569 OF 2021 ..20.. would also welcome such mediatory efforts, if it is serious and _bona fide_ for resolution of the disputes. Liberty is also accorded to both sides to ensure resolution of their disputes on the basis of mediatory proceedings. 24. These crucial and relevant aspects of the matter have not been duly taken note of in the rendering of the impugned judgment in the W.P.(C). So, the impugned judgment in W.P. (C).No. 8675/2021 will stand substituted as above. With these observations and directions, the above Writ Appeal will stand finally disposed of. ## **Sd/-** ## **ALEXANDER THOMAS** ## **JUDGE** **Sd/-** ## **SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN** **JUDGE** bka/-