W.P.(C).No.26347/21
Case Details & Bench
- Court
- High Court of Kerala
- Hon'ble Judges
- ANU SIVARAMAN
- Judgment Date
- 2022-02-04
- Court Decision / Holding
- Writ petition is ordered accordingly.
- Final Disposition
- Writ petition is ordered accordingly.
Parties to the Case
Appellants / Petitioners
- Sharafudeen
- Abdul Wahab
- Sherji Rasheed
- Fathimashamsudeen
Respondents
- State of Kerala represented by the Secretary, Department of Home Affairs, Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram-695001
- The Director General of Police, Police Headquarters, Vazhuthakkadu, Thiruvananthapuram-695010
- The Superintendent of Police (Rural), Office of the Superintendent of Police, Near University of Kerala State House Campus, Palayam, Thiruvananthapuram-695033
- The Station House Officer, Office of the Inspector of Police, Pozhiyoor Police Station, Pozhiyoor, Thiruvananthapuram-695513
- Mohammed, d/o Ayishabeebi, Mekkeveettuvilakom Veettil, Karode, Karode Village, Thiruvananthapuram-695506
- Hamedabeebi, d/o Ayishabeebi, Mekkeveettuvilakomveettil, Karode, Karode Village, Thiruvananthapuram-695506
- Sulekhabeebi, d/o Ayishabeebi, Mekkeveettuvilakomveettil, Karode, Karode Village, Thiruvananthapuram-695506
- Sabiyabeebi, d/o Ayishabeebi, Mekkeveettuvilakomveettil, Karode, Karode Village, Thiruvananthapuram-695506
- Baby, s/o Kutttannadar, Arattuvilaveedu, Karode, Karode Village, Thiruvananthapuram-695506
- George, s/o Palayan, Pottiyilputhuvalveetil, Karode, Karode Village, Thiruvananthapuram-695506
- Jayan, s/o Thankappan, Pottiyil House, Karode, Karode Village, Thiruvananthapuram-695506
- Jai Singh, s/o Varghese, Puthuvalveettil, Karode, Karode Village, Thiruvananthapuram-695506
- Justin Raj, s/o Varghese, Charottukonamkutta kuzhu vila, Karode, Karode Village, Thiruvananthapuram-695506
Legal Representation & Advocates
Counsels for Petitioners
- • V.G. Arun
- • V. Jaya Ragi
- • R. Harikrishnan (Kambisseril)
- • Neeraj Narayan
Counsels for Respondents
- • S. Gokul Babu
- • M. Anil Prasad
- • S. Jayant
Case Synopsis & Summary
This writ petition challenges a denial of police protection to four petitioners who claim co-ownership and possession of 3.58 acres in Karode village, arising from a partition suit (O.S.682/2009) and a final decree (12.06.2013). The petitioners assert they obtained title and possession under a preliminary decree (23.09.2011) and delivery of possession (05.06.2014); they further state that a portion of the land was released from receivership by order dated 05.08.2014 and the parties subsequently partitioned via Exhibit P5, with mutation following. They allege that on 2.11.2011 others (respondents 5–13) attempted to trespass and obstruct cultivation; police complaints were filed but not acted upon. Respondents contend that the land originally belonged to the lineage of Padmanabhan Nadar and Velayudhan Nadar, with old Survey Nos. 198/2 and 198/3 in Kolathoor/Karode now in Karode village, and that petitioners have no right over the property, which is encumbered and subject to civil dispute. The petition relies on several prior decisions to argue Article 226 cannot be used where identity of the property is in dispute. The High Court ultimately held that, though disputes exist, the petitioners have shown title and right to the properties evidenced by P1–P3, and that police protection under Article 226 could be granted without adjudicating disputed facts. The petition is allowed; respondents are to refrain from obstruction, and the 4th respondent must provide protection, with respondents free to pursue civil remedies for their claims.
Provisions of Law Cited
Submissions & Arguments
Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners
The petitioners contend they are co-owners in possession of 3 acre 58 cents in Block 47, Re-survey No.25/2-4 of Karode Village, supported by preliminary decree (2011) and final decree (2013). They assert delivery of possession (2014) and release from receivership (2014), followed by partition by compromise (2016) and mutation. They claim title and possession under Exhibits P1–P3 and seek police protection under Article 226 to enjoy the parcels allotted to them, challenging threats and attempts at Trespass by respondents 5–13. While acknowledging possible civil disputes, they rely on judgments allowing writ relief for protection where title is established by decree/records, and emphasize that obstruction of possession cannot be permitted pending civil adjudication. They submit that petitioners should not be forced to forego possession due to disputes and that any challenge to identity of the property should be resolved in civil court, not by denial of police protection.
Contentions of Respondents
The respondents contend the petitioners encroached on land originally belonging to Padmanabhan Nadar and Velayudhan Nadar, with old Survey Nos. 198/2 and 198/3 in Kolathoor/Karode now in Karode Village; thus identity of property is disputed. They argue that the petition is a collusive attempt to obtain protection despite unresolved civil claims. They cite earlier rulings (e.g., W.P.(C)10824/2013 and related precedents) to contend that Article 226 cannot be used to resolve disputed questions of title; the civil court remedy is appropriate for adjudicating rights. They also note that the encumbrance certificate and documentary evidence raise questions about continuous possession and rightful title. The respondents assert that police protection should not override civil remedies and that the petitioners’ claims should be tested in court of law rather than via writ jurisdiction.”},
Cited Precedents (6)
| Case Name | Citation | Treatment | Explanation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Shaji M.K. and another v. State of Kerala and others | 2018(3) KHC 69 | Mentioned Only | Cited to support the proposition that identity of the property may require civil adjudication; used by respondents to argue against writ relief. |
| Moran Mar Baselious Marthoma Mathews II and others v. State of Kerala | 2007 KHC 348 | Mentioned Only | Cited to illustrate the civil court remedy when property identity is in dispute. |
| St.George Tabore Church and others v. State of Kerala and others | 2020 KHC 913 | Mentioned Only | Cited as authority regarding civil remedy for disputed property identity. |
| Unnikrishnan and others v. Kunhibeevi and others | 2011(1) KHC 352 | Mentioned Only | Cited by petitioners to argue writ viability; treated as referenced authority rather than binding determination. |
| Illyas T.A v. State of Kerala and others | 2014 KHC 647 | Mentioned Only | Cited as supportive of writ remedy in certain factual matrices; not adopted as a binding principle here. |
| Baby v. Deputy Superintendent of Police, Attingal and others | 2019 (4) KHC 660 | Mentioned Only | Cited by petitioners on writ viability; not overruled or distinguished in the present decision. |
Diagnostic Tool
Does this judgment govern your specific facts?
Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against W.P.(C).No.26347/21 and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.
Extracted Judgment Text
Exact text extracted from official judgment records.