Dismissed

Sharafudeen v. the Supdt.of Police and Others

Kerala HC18 Mar 2011WP(C)/5987/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged a deprivation of land rights and alleged police collusion, claiming police protection under Article 226. The court dismissed the writ, ruling that complex civil title disputes must be resolved by civil courts, not this writ jurisdiction.

What did the court decide?

No directions under Article 226 of the Constitution were issued; the writ petition was dismissed.

Sharafudeen Vs the Supdt.of Police and Others — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT &

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN

¶5

FRIDAY, THE 18TH MARCH 2011 / 27TH PHALGUNA 1932

¶6

WP(C).No. 5987 of 2011(W)

¶7

--------------------------------------

¶8

PETITIONER(S): -------------------------

¶9

SHARAFUDEEN, CHAMAVILA VEEDU, KOTTAKATHU CHERRY, PARIPALLY VILLAGE, PARIPPALLY.

¶10

BY SRI.N.DHARMADAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE

¶11

RESPONDENT(S):

¶12

--------------------------

¶13

1. THE SUPERIBNTENDENT OF POLICE, O/O. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KOLLAM.

¶14

2. S.I OF POLICE, PARIPPALLY POLICE STATION, PARIPPALLY.

¶15

3. B. RAJAN, MANKADAVILAYAIL, A.K.G NAGAR, IDAVA DESOM, IDAVA VILLAGE, CHIRAYINKEEZHU.

¶16

4. MOHAMMED SADIQUE, IDAPPURAM VEETTIL, KURAKKANNI DESOM, VARKALA VILLAGE, VARKALA.

¶17

R1 & R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT.CHARISMA

¶18

R3 BY ADVS. SRI.R.S.KALKURA , SRI.M.S.KALESH, SRI.HARISH GOPINATH, SRI.V.VINAY MENON, SRI.M.AJAY (IRUMPANAM), SMT.KVP.JAYALEKSHMY, SRI.RON THOMAS JOSEPH. R4 BY ADV. SRI.M.V.BOSE, SMT.D.P.RENU, SRI.VINOD MADHAVAN.

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

tss

¶21

W.P.(C) NO.5987/2011

¶22

APPENDIX

¶23

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

¶24

P1:- COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE REVENUE INSPECTOR DT. 10.10.90.

¶25

P1(a):- COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DTD. 16.11.81.

¶26

P2:- COPY OF THE ROUGH SKETCH OF THE PROPERTY.

¶27

P3:- COPY OF THE ORDER IN EA. 1081/66 IN OS. 13/54 DTD. 12.12.66 OF THE SUB COURT, KOLLAM.

¶28

P4:- COPY OF THE CMP.483/2001 IN SA. NO.219/2001 FILED BEFORE THIS HONOURABLE COURT.

¶29

P5:- COPY OF THE ORDER IN CMP. 483/2001 IN SA. 219/2001 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT DTD. 17.7.2001.

¶30

P6:- COPY OF THE PETITION DTD. 3.1.2011 BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶31

P7:- COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 22.2.2011 BEFORE THE IST RESPONDENT.

¶32

P8:- COPY OF THE DECREE IN OS. 311/1119 DTD. 10.2.1947 OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, KOLLAM.

¶33

P9:- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN OS. 11/2011 DTD. 17.1.2011 OF THE MUNSIFFMAGISTRATE COURT, PARAVOOR ALONGWITH COMPROMISE PETITION.

¶34

P10:- COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT IN OP. 1268/95 DTD. 4.2.95 BEFORE THIS HONOURABLE COURT.

¶35

P11:- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN OP.1268/95 DT. 14.3.95 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT.

¶36

P12:- COPY OF THE PLAINT OS. NO.13/54 FILED BEFORE THE SUB COURT, ATTINGAL.

¶37

P13:- COPY OF THE PETITION DTD. 17.2.2011 FILED BEFORE THE MUNSIFF COURT, PARAVOOR.

¶38

P14:- COPY OF THE PETITION FOR REVIEW DTD. 17.2.2011 FILED BEFORE THE MUNSIFF COURT, PARAVOOR.

¶39

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS

¶40

R3(a):- COPY OF THE PARTITION DEED NO.4324/1968 DTD. 9.10.1968 ENTERED INTO BETWEEN AMINA UMMAL AND OTHERS.

¶41

R3(b):- COPY OF THE SALE DEED EXECUTED BY MOHAMMED HASHIM DTD. 4.7.1998. BEARING NO.2558/1998 IN THE NAME OF NASEEMATH BEEVI AND RASEELIYA.

¶42

R3(c):- COPY OF THE SALE DEED EXECUTED BY NASEEMATH BEEVI AND RASEELIYA IN FAVOUR OF PRAKASH.

¶43

R3(d):- COPY OF THE SALE DEED EXECUTED BY PRAKASH IN FAVOUR OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶44

R3(e):- COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT BEARING NO.3714591 DT. 16.8.2010 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, PARIPALLY VILLAGE, KOLLAM.

¶45

R3(f):- COPY OF THE ENCUMBERANCE CERTIFICATE DTD. 19.8.2010 ISSUED BY THE CHATHANOOR SUB REGISTRY.

¶46

R3(g):- COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, PARIPALLY.

¶47

R3(h):- COPY OF THE APPEAL MEMORANDUM IN AAAAA4 NO.16/03.

¶48

R3(i):- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN OS. 11/2011 DTD. 17.1.2011 OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, PARAVUR.

¶49

R3(j):- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN OS. 664/91 DTD. 22.9.93 OF THE FILE OF THE MUNSIFF MAGISTRATE COURT, PARAVOOR.

¶50

R4(a):- COPY OF THE ORDER, DTD. 3.10.1988 IN CRP. 1467/87.

¶51

R4(b):- COPY OF THE BASIC TAX RECEIPT, DTD. 28.2.2010.

TRUE COPY

P.S. TO JUDGE

tss

R.BASANT & K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ.

¶56

W.P(C) NO:5987 OF 2011 W

¶57

Dated this the 18^th March, 2011.

¶58

JUDGMENT

¶59

Basant, J.

¶60

The petitioner has come to this Court claiming issue of directions under Art.226 both for police protection and against police harassment.

¶61

According to the petitioner 2.11 acres of land belong to his father on leasehold right. He asserted those rights but ultimately in C.R.P.1467/97 this Court had rejected the said claim for leasehold rights. Subsequently petitioner had claimed rights as the L.R of his father claims that he was a deemed tenant under Section 7B of the Kerala Land Refors Act, 1963. That petition was rejected by the land tribunal. Appeal is pending before the appellate authority.

¶62

According to the petitioner subsequently some other persons had attempted to interfere with his rights over the property. He was hence constrained to file a suit. Decision in that suit was against the petitioner. The petitioner has come before this Court in that proceedings and S.A.219/2001 is

¶63

WPC 5987/2011 2

¶64

pending before this Court. An order of injunction has been secured by the petitioner in the second appeal but admittedly respondents 3 and 4 herein are the only party respondents parties to the said suit. They are strangers to that suit.

¶65

According to the petitioner he as one of the legal heir of his deceased father is in exclusive possession of the said 2.11 acres of land. Respondents 3 and 4 collusively had filed a suit and they have obtained Ext.P9 decree in relation to 50 cents of property within the said 2.11 acres. On the strength of that collusive decree respondents 3 and 4 are asserting rights. Petitioner claims protection against the attempt of respondents 3 and 4 to interfere with his peaceful exclusive possession of the said 2.11 acres of land. The petitioner has a further grievance that the police are colluding with respondents 3 and 4. The local Sub Inspector, second respondent is unnecessarily interfering in the civil dispute between parties. It is in these circumstances that direction against police harassment is claimed. The petitioner in these circumstances prays that directions under Art.226 of the Constitution may be issued to protect his person and life as also his exclusive possession over

¶66

WPC 5987/2011 3

¶67

2.11 acres of land. He further prays that police harassment may be stopped by issue of appropriate directions.

¶68

Respondents 3 and 4 have entered appearance. They have an entirely different version to advance. According to them a predecessor of fourth respondent had obtained the property as per a sale deed executed by the representative of a taravad. Petitioner's father also claims leasehold rights from the said taravad. According to respondents 3 and 4 subsequently as per two partition deeds in the family of the fourth respondent and an assignment deed, the third respondent has acquired rights over 50 cents of land. The petitioner or his father has no title or possession over such land. The fourth respondent only holds adjacent property. There was a dispute between respondents 3 and 4 about their properties. They had bonafide litigated and finally as per a settlement reached between them Ext.P9 decree was passed. In short the contention of respondents 3 and 4 is that the 50 cents of land to which Ext.P9 decree relates is in the exclusive possession of the third respondent and the petitioner has no rights over that property.

¶69

It is now admitted that the petitioner has filed Exts.P13 and P14 applications before the court which passed Ext.P9

¶70

WPC 5987/2011 4

¶71

decree to reopen the said suit, to set aside the decree and for disposal of that suit afresh after giving the petitioner opportunity to be heard. According to the petitioner on coming to know of the claim staked by respondents 3 and 4, the petitioner has taken steps to implead respondents 3 and 4 in the appeal pending before the appellate authority under Kerala Land Reforms Act.

¶72

The learned Govt. Pleader takes the stand that it is for the parties to obtain appropriate orders from the civil court. Police have no intention to interfere in the civil disputes between the parties. But in the wake of Ext.P9 decree it is for the parties to seek appropriate further directions from the civil court. Police shall not interfere in the civil dispute but law and order has to be maintained by the police, submits the learned Govt. Pleader.

¶73

We have thus heard all counsel. We have considered all the relevant inputs. We must alertly remind ourselves of the nature of our jurisdiction under Art.226 of the Constitution. Complicated dispute between parties about the title and possession cannot obviously be attempted to be resolved in proceedings under Art.226. We do take note of the crucial circumstance that in the second appeal pending before this

¶74

WPC 5987/2011 5

¶75

Court respondents 3 and 4 are not parties. We take note of the circumstances that in Ext.P9 proceedings petitioner has already taken steps to get impleaded and seek further directions from the civil court. We are certainly of the opinion that this is not a fit case where this Court should invoke its jurisdiction under Art.226 of the Constitution. Parties must seek appropriate further directions from the civil court and that according to us is the only satisfactory manner in which the disputes can be resolved.

¶76

We therefore, take the view that no directions under Art.226 are liable to be issued. This writ petition is accordingly dismissed with the above observations.

¶77

R.BASANT Judge

¶78

K. SURENDRA MOHAN Judge

¶79

¶80

WPC 5987/2011 6

Sharafudeen v. the Supdt.of Police and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sharafudeen v. the Supdt.of Police and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jacob Taliat Vs the Marine Products Exports Development

Joby Vs Marykutty Joseph

Leela Raghavan Vs State of Kerala

Sivaji Jaganathan Vs the Director General of Police

Wilson Janis Vs State of Kerala and 4 Others

John Philip Vs the Superintendent of Police