A writ court cannot adjudicate civil rights disputes, necessitating resolution through appropriate civil proceedings.

JUDGMENT

Petitioners seek for a direction to the first respondent to afford adequate protection to the petitioners and their workers who are working in their property scheduled in Ext.P5 and Ext.P10 in this writ petition.

2. A perusal of Ext.P5 and Ext.P10 reveals that the petitioners were the plaintiffs in O.S.No.245/2025 and O.S.No.268/2025 on the files of the Munsiff Court, Devikulam. The property over which the petitioners seek police protection for engaging workers is the property scheduled therein, which falls in Survey No.62/2 of Chathurangappara Village, Udumbanchola Taluk.

3. The respondents, however, have filed a counter affidavit pointing out that they had purchased the property in Survey No.62/2 of Chathurangappara Village, Udumbanchola Taluk as per Ext.R2(C), pursuant to an auction under the SARFAESI Act and that they are in possession of those properties. The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the petitioners are attempting to forcibly evict them from the property under the guise of a police protection order. It was also submitted that the rights of the petitioners over the property in question became vested with the Kerala Bank and petitioners purchased the property in the auction conducted thereafter. It is stated that petitioners have absolutely no possession of any property as alleged.

4. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the respondents and the learned Government Pleader, I am of the view that, since there are civil disputes pending between the parties, this Court ought not to grant any police protection. While the petitioners do not have any claim to the title of the property and only claim a possessory right, the second and third respondents are claiming right, title and interest based on title deeds obtained pursuant to a court auction. Hence, I am of the view that the police protection as sought for cannot be granted.

5. In the decision inPadmanabhan v. State of Kerala[2024 (6) KLT 575], it was observed that a writ court cannot be made a forum for adjudicating on civil rights. To seek a writ of mandamus directing protection in respect of property, status or right which remains to be adjudicated upon and when such an adjudication can only be got done in a properly instituted civil suit, it would be an abuse of process for a writ petitioner to approach the High Court under Art.226 of the Constitution seeking a writ of mandamus directing the police authorities to protect his claimed possession of a property without first establishing his possession in an appropriate civil court.

6. In the instant case, since the respondents undertook that they have no intention to cause any harm or threat to the petitioners’, the claim for grant of protection to life is without any basis. Moreover, as there are civil disputes pending between the parties, there is every possibility that such an order may be misused. Therefore, I decline to grant the prayers as sought.

7. However, it is clarified that in the event of any imminent threat to the life of the petitioners and if any intimation is given to the first respondent, appropriate action shall be initiated to avert such threats to the life of the petitioners. It is further clarified that this order shall not be misinterpreted to provide any form of protection for the alleged possessory right claimed by the petitioners over any property.

Needless to mention that the observations made in this judgment shall not have any bearing on any civil dispute pending between the parties and the same shall be decided on the merits of each such cases.

sd/-