Back
2026 Supreme(Ker) 304
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bechu Kurian Thomas, J.
A.J. John – Petitioner
Versus
The Superintendent Of Police Kozhikode (Rural) – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 48519 OF 2025
Decided On : 16-03-2026
For the Petitioner: Sri.P.A.Noor Muhamed, Smt.S.Giffara
For the Respondent: Smt.Amminikutty, Sr. Govt. Pleader, Sri.R.Krishna Raj, Sri.R.Pratheesh (Aranmula), Smt.E.S.Soni, Sri.Arun Raj
Purchase certificate under KLR Act valid if landlord impleaded; protects possession against unsubstantiated Devaswom claims; police must protect decreed title.
Headnote:Under the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 (KLR Act), particularly Sections 7E, 72, and 72F, the Land Tribunal issued a certificate of title (Ext.P2) to occupants after verifying tenancy claims, vesting prior excess land claims with the Government. Petitioner inherited 3.90 acres from sale deeds No.1472/1974 and 1510/1974, confirmed by Land Tribunal order dated 10.01.2018 and Sub Court decree in O.S.No.45/2023 (Ext.P7), distinguishing property in Re-survey No.20/1 from adjacent temple land in Re-survey No.20/2. Court found occupants entitled to possession based on purchase certificate and civil decree, rejecting claims of Devaswom title due to improper impleadment challenges and lack of appeal by Devaswom. Key issue: Whether purchase certificate under KLR Act is valid despite alleged non-impleadment of Devaswom and claims of temple property encroachment. Ratio: Revenue entries do not confer title; certificate valid as Devaswom properly impleaded (Ext.R3(c)); Sub Court findings (para 75-76, Ext.P7) confirm distinct properties, supported by DW1 testimony (Ext.P12); temple samithi lacks locus standi for appeal (Appeal No.4/2019). Writ petition allowed; police directed to provide protection for peaceful possession per Ext.P5 and Ext.P7.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner's title via inheritance, klr certificate, civil decree. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. respondents claim devaswom temple property, invalid certificate. (Para 4 , 6) |
| 3. certificate valid; properties distinct; no devaswom appeal. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 4. precedents protect possession; police must provide protection. (Para 14 , 15 , 16) |
JUDGMENT :
Bechu Kurian Thomas, J.
Petitioner seeks police protection to his life and for his property to prevent criminal trespass, intimidation and obstructions from respondents 3 to 8 and their henchmen.
2. Petitioner's mother-Smt.Anna, was the owner of 5.20 acres of land, which was purchased by her as per sale deed No.1472/1974 and sale deed No1510/1974 of the Sub Registrar's Office, Mukkom, Kozhikode. The former sale deed covered an extent of 3.20 acres while the latter included 2 acres. After the petitioner's parents passed away, their children - petitioner and his siblings, inherited the property. Pursuant to a sale of 1.30 acres, the petitioner and his siblings are now in ownership and possession of 3.90 acres and are paying the taxes thereon. According to the petitioner, from out of the land purchased by the petitioner’s mother, an extent of 3.62 acres of land of the prior owner, became vested with the Government under the KLR Act as excess land, and by an order dated 10.01.2018, the Land Tribunal Devaswom, Kozhikode, found the petitioner and his siblings to be tenants entitled for a certificate of purchase under Section 7E of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 (for short ‘the KLR Act’) and Kerala Land Reforms (Tenancy) Rules, 1970 . The certificate of title was issued, as evident from Ext.P2, and thereafter the petitioner and his siblings have been in possession and occupation of the said property as absolute owners.
3. In the meantime, when certain persons tried to trespass into the property and cause obstructions to their enjoyment, petitioner filed a complaint to the District Collector, who, by order dated 12.02.2020 directed police protection to be afforded. Despite the above, the police failed to provide necessary protection and hence petitioner filed O.S.No.45 of 2023 before the Sub Court, Kozhikode for a permanent prohibitory injunction. Petitioner alleges that, in the meantime, another suit was filed by certain strangers as O.S.No.61 of 2022, seeking a declaration and injunction against the petitioner and his siblings. By a common judgment, the learned Sub Judge dismissed O.S.No.61 of 2022 with costs and decreed O.S.No.45 of 2023, as evident from Ext.P7 judgment. As per the decree, the defendants therein, which includes respondents 3, 4, 5, 6 and 8 herein, were injuncted from trespassing into the petitioner's property and also from disturbing his peaceful enjoyment and possession. According to the petitioner, despite the above judgment and decree, respondents 3 to 10 continued to use their influence and indulged in unlawful obstructions and even criminally intimidated the petitioner. Since no assistance was provided by the police, despite requests, due to the clout of influence wielded by the respondents, petitioner has approached this Court seeking the reliefs mentioned earlier.
4. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondents 3 to 10 pointing out that the property of 3.97 acres situated in Re-survey No.20/1 is a Devaswom property, belonging to the Thiruvannoor Devaswom and that the petitioner's mother had approached the Land Tribunal and obtained a purchase certificate under Section 72of the KLR Act without properly impleading the Devaswom. According to the contesting respondents, on a reading of the purchase certificate itself it was clear that the eastern boundary of the property having an extent of 5.20 acres situated in Re-Survey No.20/1 of Kumaranelloor village was a temple property. The respondent alleged that Sree Kalpur Madamparamba Karuvan Kariyathan Kshethra Samrakshana Samithi Advisory Committee, has already filed an appeal against the o
