Chithalingam vs District Police Superintendent and Others

K. Harilal, J.—Briefly put, the averments in the writ petition are as follows :- The petitioner is the owner in possession of 3 acres of land comprised in Sy. No. 469/pt in Padavayal Village, Mannarkkad Taluk by virtue of Ext.P1 Settlement Deed and Ext.P2 correction deed executed by his father. Ext.P1(a) to P1(c) are the Possession Certificates issued by the Village Officer. Now the petitioner is conducting agricultural operations in the said property.

In the year 1986, one Karuthala Maruthan, the owner of the neighbouring property made an attempt to trespass into the above said property. The petitioner filed O.S. No. 54/1986, against Maruthan for permanent prohibitory injunction and the suit was decreed by Ext.P2 Judgment and Ext.P2(a) decree. Though, Maruthan challenged the decree in Appeal, it was also dismissed by Ext.P3 Judgment and Ext.P2(a) decree which was confirmed in Appeal has attained finality as there was no second appeal.

The 6th respondent is the son of Maruthan, 7th respondent is the wife of the 6th respondent, 8th respondent is the another son of Maruthan, respondents 9 to 11 are the children of the 8th respondent. The present grievance of the petitioner is that, respondents 6 to 11, who are bound by Ext.P2(a) decree, are attempting to dispossess the petitioner from the above said property, by raking up the old issue which was finally decided by the competent court. Respondents 6 to 11 are powerful in local politics, and they are trying to disrupt the agricultural operations of the petitioner. Ext.P4 to P6 complaints filed before the Police for protection to life and property do not evoke any result. Thus the petitioner''s life and property is in imminent danger. Hence the petitioner prayed for a direction to respondents 1 to 6 to afford adequate police protection to the life of the petitioner and his family, directing respondents 1 to 4 to restrain respondents 6 to 11 from indulging in any unlawful activities, against the life and property of the petitioner and declare that respondents 6 to 11 are bound by Ext.P2 Judgment.

The 6th respondent filed a counter affidavit for and on behalf of respondents 7, 8 and 10 denying all the allegations averred in the writ petition against these respondents. They did not try to trespass into the property of the petitioner at any point of time. The 6th respondent''s father Maruthan took back the property which was leased out to the petitioner and lying adjacent to the petitioner''s property mentioned in the writ petition. The respondent had planted 300 plantains in that property. The petitioner along with some local goondas encroached the property and destroyed entire yield and plantain. So these respondents were compelled to lodge Ext.R6(a) complaint before the Dy. Superintendent of Police and in retaliation of that complaint the petitioner filed this writ petition before this court.

The petitioner filed a reply affidavit denying the allegations raised against the petitioner in the counter affidavit. According to the petitioner, there was no lease arrangement and he has not encroached into the property of the 6th respondent with goondas. Ext.R6 (a) complaint is frivolous. The violence unleashed by respondents went upto displacing him from his residence, though temporarily. The threat to life continues and he has no other go, but to approach this court to safe guard his life and property.

The learned counsel for the petitioner advanced arguments to fortify various grounds alleged in the petition. Per contra the learned counsel for the respondent opposed the arguments and made submissions in support of the averments in the counter affidavit. The learned Govt. Pleader submitted that Exts.P4 to P5 complaints filed by the petitioner and Ext.P6(a) complaint filed by the respondent are pending for investigation.

Coming to the question of protection to property, according to the petitioner, there had been a dispute, with respect to the property which is in possession and enjoyment of the petitioner, between the 6th respondent''s father Maruthan and the petitioner. That dispute culminated in a civil suit and the suit was decreed in his favour by Ext.P2 Judgment and attained finality by Ext.P3 Judgment of the Appellate Court. It is pertinent to note that in the counter affidavit filed by respondents 6, 7, 8 and 10 they have not disputed the right and title of the petitioner in the property which is in the possession of the petitioner. But their case is that the petitioner and seven others trespassed into their property lying adjacent to the petitioner''s property and destroyed 300 plantains which they cultivated in their property. Similarly in the reply affidavit filed by the petitioner, he has not raised any right or possession over the above said adjacent property in possession of the 6th respondent and others, though he denied the destruction of 300 plantains.

In regard to the prayer for protection to property, the stand of the party respondents is that the party respondents did not trespass into the property of the petitioner at any point of time. Therefore we are inclined to grant protection to the property covered by Ext.P2(a) decree.

Coming to the protection for life, Ext.P4, P5 and P6 complaints filed by the petitioner and Ext.R6(a) complaint filed by the 6th respondent exposes that rivalry subsisting between the parties and that allegedly culminated in the commission of criminal acts which led to the filing of above said complaints. The learned Government Pleader submitted that the above said complaints disclosing cognizable offence are pending before the Police for investigation. We feel that we should give protection to the life of the petitioner and his family. In the result, there will be a direction to the 4th respondent to look into any complaint that may be received from the petitioner alleging threat from respondents 6 to 11, and if the complaint is found genuine, 4th respondent shall give protection to the property covered by Ext.P2(a) decree and life of the petitioner and his family as against respondents 6 to 11. We make it clear that this order will not stand in the way of investigation and proper steps thereon on Ext.R6(a) complaint in accordance with law.