2021 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 58149
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
K.SURESH – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
WP(C) 14027/2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 16TH BHADRA, 1943 WP(C) NO. 14027 OF 2021 PETITIONER:
K.SURESH, AGED 52 YEARS, S/O. KUMARAN (LATE), KANNACHI NIVAS, ADICHIRA, KARIPODE VILLAGE, CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678503.
BY ADVS.
RAJESH SIVARAMANKUTTY K.VIJINA ARUL MURALIDHARAN RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY HOME SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695001.
2 THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF, PALAKKAD, OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF, PALAKKAD, PALAKKAD, PIN - 678001.
3 THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PUDUNAGARAM POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678503.
4 LEELA , W/O. UUNNAN & D/O. PERUMAL, KARIPPODE THARA, PUDUNAGARAM VILLAGE, CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678503.
5 LATHA, GRAND DAUGHTER OF PERUMAL, KARIPPODE THARA, PUDUNAGARAM VILLAGE, CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678503.
BY ADV P.YADHU KUMAR SRI.E.C.BINEESH – GP THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
07.09.2021, ALONG WITH WP(C).15351/2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 16TH BHADRA, 1943 WP(C) NO. 15351 OF 2021 PETITIONERS:
1 ABDUL JABBAR, AGED 47 YEARS, S/O MUHAMMED HUSSAIN, MUTHALANTHODE, VILAYODI, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.
2 RAMACHANDRAN, S/O LATE VELUKUTTY, AGED 64 YEARS, DHARMADHA HOUSE, CHOZHIYAKKADU, VANDITHAVALAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.
RAJESH SIVARAMANKUTTY K.VIJINA ARUL MURALIDHARAN RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY HOME SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
2 THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF, PALAKKAD, OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF, PALAKKAD, PIN-678001.
3 THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE (STATION HOUSE OFFICER), PUDUNGARAM POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN-678503.
4 LEELA, W/O UUNNAN AND D/O PERUMAL, AGE NOT KNOWN, KARIPPODE THARA, PUDUNAGARAM VILLAGE, CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN-678503.
5 LATHA, GRAND DAUGHTER OF PERUMAL, AGE NOT KNOWN, KARIPPODE THARA, PUDUNAGARAM VILLAGE, CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN-678503.
BY ADV P.YADHU KUMAR SRI.E.C.BINEESH – GP THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07.09.2021, ALONG WITH WP(C).14027/2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The petitioners in these two cases - which have been heard together on account of the analogous facts and circumstances pleaded and similarity in the reliefs sought – claim that their agricultural operations in an extent of property owned by them in certain survey numbers in Podunagaram Village of Palakkad District, are being obstructed by the party respondents herein, without any justified cause; and therefore, that they were constrained to approach the 3rd respondent – Sub Inspector of Police, Podunagaram Police Station, through a request seeking protection.
2. The petitioners say that since the said Authority did not act as per their request, they have been constrained to approach this Court for a direction to the 3rd respondent to ensure that their lives and properties are adequately protected from any threat or intimidation from the party respondents.
3. I have heard Shri.Rajesh Sivaramankutty, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners; Shri.Yadhukumar P., learned counsel appearing for the party respondents and the learned Government Pleader, Shri.E.C.Bineesh appearing for the official respondents.
4. Sri.Yadukumar P. – learned counsel for the party respondents, submitted that the edifice of the claims of the petitioners in these Writ Petitions is on an assertion that they are the owners of the property in question, but that this is factually incorrect and contrary to the truth. He submitted that his clients have sufficient records to prove that the properties, which the petitioners are claiming to be their own, do not belong to them but to his clients and that, therefore, they have now decided to approac