Police protection can be granted to maintain lawful enjoyment of property where threats exist, based on established property rights.

JUDGMENT

Petitioners’ seek police protection for their lives as well as for their property, from any threat or intimidation from respondents 4 to 7.

2. Petitioners claim to be the owners of 9.70 Ares of land situated in resurvey Nos.148/12, 148/12-1, 148/12-3 and 148/13 of Block No.11 of Kuttoor Village in Pathanamthitta District. Petitioners claim that these properties were purchased by sale deed Nos.1883/1996, 2815/1990 and 3390/1997 of Thiruvalla Sub Registry. According to the petitioners, respondents 4 and 5 are the nearby property owners who tried to trespass into petitioners' property to cut open a new pathway, which resulted in the first petitioner filing O.S. No.363/2014 before the Munsiff’s Court, Thiruvalla. Subsequently, O.S. No.378/2014 before the same court was filed by respondents 6 and 7 seeking fixation of boundary. The two suits were tried together, and by Exhibit-P1 common judgment dated 29.10.2021, the suit filed by the first petitioner, i.e., O.S. No.363/2014 was decreed, while that filed by respondents 6 and 7 i.e., O.S. No.378/2014 was dismissed. Appeals were filed against the common judgment by respondents 4 and 5 as well as respondents 6 and 7 respectively, which were dismissed as per common judgment dated 29.01.2024 in A.S. No.27/2021 and A.S. No.28/2021. Against the said common judgment, respondents 6 and 7 preferred Second Appeal before this Court, which was dismissed at the admission stage itself.

3. According to the petitioners, subsequent to the decree in O.S. No.363/2014, when respondents 4 to 7 attempted to trespass into the property of the petitioners, this writ petition seeking police protection was filed.

4. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondents

4, 6 and 7 pointing out that petitioners’ property and that of the said respondents are separated by a public pathway connecting MC Road and the Panchayat Road and the 5^th respondent had been enjoying the public pathway from the two roads. Though it was conceded that the suit filed by the first petitioner was decreed while that filed by respondents 6 and 7 was dismissed, it is stated that since a public pathway exists between the properties of the petitioners and respondents 6 and 7, and as they foresaw a chance of getting a stay order from the High Court in the Second Appeal which they intended to file, grant of police protection would prejudice their rights and even result in the petitioners encroaching into the respondents’ property. It is also pleaded that a crime has been registered as FIR No.1190/2022 of Thiruvalla Police Station, at the instance of the 7^th respondent against the petitioners.

5. A reply affidavit has been filed pointing out that Crime No.1190/2022 of Thiruvalla Police Station was referred by the Police after investigation and further that O.S. No.51/2024 (wrongly mentioned in the reply affidavit as O.S. No.52/2024) was filed subsequent to the filing of the writ petition.

6. An additional counter affidavit has also been filed by the respondents 4, 6 and 7 to the reply affidavit.

7. I have heard Sri. Joseph George, the learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri. Sajith Kumar V., the learned counsel for respondents 4, 6 and 7 and Smt. Amminikutty K.. the learned Senior Government Pleader.

8. Concededly, the suit filed by the first petitioner was decreed and that filed by respondents 6 and 7 was dismissed. Respondents 6 and 7 had received an adverse decree, which has even been affirmed by the Appellate Court. The challenge raised in second appeal is also admitted as having been dismissed by this Court. Therefore, as far as respondents 6 and 7 or anybody acting under them are concerned, they are already