SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 12167

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J
ANNAMMA CHACKO – Appellant
Versus
SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE IDUKKI – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 8794 OF 2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SHRI.MOHAMMED ASHRAF, SHRI.THIMOTHY DAL
For the Respondents: SRI. RAJEEV JYOTHISH GEORGE, GP

The court cannot grant police protection in civil disputes but can maintain law and order.

Headnote:The petitioner sought police protection against trespass on her property, claiming ownership of lands amidst ongoing civil disputes. An interim injunction was previously granted; however, police could not interfere due to the civil nature of the dispute. The court decided to make the previous interim order to maintain law and order absolute.

Result: Writ petition disposed of as above.

Table of Content
1. the need for police protection against trespass on property. (Para 1 , 2)
2. court's inability to intervene in ongoing civil disputes. (Para 3 , 5)
3. the verdict of maintaining law and order as absolute. (Para 4)

JUDGMENT

Petitioner seeks for police protection against any waste or trespass by the 3rd respondent.

2. Petitioner claims to be the owner of 1.87 Acres of land situated in Survey No.110/5 and 110/10 of Kalkoonthal village, Udumbanchola Taluk. Due to certain civil disputes that arose with the third respondent, petitioner filed O.S.No.426/2024 before the Munsiff Court, Kattapana, seeking a permanent prohibitory injunction. By Ext.P3 order dated 15.11.2024, in I.A.No.1/2024 in O.S.No.426/24; an interim injunction was granted. Despite the said interim injunction, when the petitioner went out of station, the 3rd respondent allegedly trespassed into her property and committed damages. A complaint was lodged before the Police. According to the petitioner, despite the above complaint, no action has been initiated, and therefore, she has approached this Court through this writ petition.

3. Despite service of notice on the 3rd respondent, none has appeared.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Pleader.

5. On a perusal of the pleadings in the writ petition and after hearing the arguments of the learned counsel on either side, it is evident that a civil dispute is pending between the parties. Since the Police cannot interfere in a civil dispute, the request for directions against trespass, and commission of waste on the property cannot be granted. Notwithstanding the above, it needs to be noted that an interim order was passed by this Court on 14.03.2025, directing the second respondent to maintain law and order in the petitioner’s locality without interfering any civil dispute between the petitioner and the third respondent. Considering the entire circumstances, I am of the view that the said interim order can be made absolute.

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing the second respondent to maintain law and order in the petitioner’s locality, without interfering in any civil disputes between the petitioner and the third respondent.

The writ petition is disposed of as above.

sd/-

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top