Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 9289
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J
SURESH K J – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 40609 OF 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.C.R.JAYAKUMAR, SRI.NOBEL RAJU, SMT.SANDRA SREEKUMAR
For the Respondents: SMT. AMMINIKUTTY K., SR.GP
The court recognizes the absence of current threat necessitating police protection but instructs action if future threats arise.
Headnote:The petitioner, claiming to be the Secretary of the Kotheth Paradevatha Devaswam Trust, alleges encroachment by respondents 4 to 6 and seeks police protection. The court, after evaluating the circumstances, finds no current threat but advises the petitioner to notify police if any threat arises, before deciding that specific police protection is unnecessary. The writ petition is thereby disposed of.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. claim of encroachment and request for protection. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. no appearance by respondents; issue of police protection discussed. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. court finds no imminent threat; issues directions regarding potential threats. (Para 5 , 6) |
JUDGMENT
Petitioner claims to be the elected Secretary of the Kotheth Paradevatha Devaswam Trust. Petitioner alleges that respondents 4 to 6 had encroached into the property of the temple and started residing there. In the meantime, a suit was instituted by the Temple Trust as OS No. 513/2011 on the files of the Additional Munsiff Court, Kollam and Ext.P3 judgment dated 10.11.2016 was delivered. It was declared that the plaintiff therein was entitled to have the defendants evicted from the plaint schedule property. Petitioner alleges that respondents 4 to 6 are the legal heirs of Sri. Mohanan Pillai, who was the second defendant in the suit and is no more.
2. According to the petitioner, an execution petition was filed as EP No. 13/2017, and respondents were evicted from the property. However, petitioner apprehends threat from the said respondents and hence this writ petition seeking police protection.
3. Despite service of notice on respondents 4 and 5 none appears on their behalf.
4. The learned Government Pleader, upon instructions, submitted that petitioner is the Secretary of the Temple Trust, and no law and order situation exists for grant of any protection. It is however submitted that, if in case any such situation arises, the police are willing to grant necessary protection to avert any untoward incident.
5. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Pleader, I am of the view that this writ petition can be disposed of.
6. According to the police as of date there is no reason to apprehend any threat or any interference by respondents 4 and 5 with the temple or its properties. In view of the above, a specific order directing the grant of police protection is not necessary. However, if in case of any imminent threat of any assault or a law and order situation arising, and if the petitioner intimates the 2nd respondent, necessarily appropriate action shall be initiated to grant sufficient protection to the petitioner from any illegal acts of respondents 4 and 5 as well as to avert such untoward incidents.
With the above observations, this writ petition is disposed of.
Sd/-
