Rightful property owners are entitled to police protection against unlawful interference regarding their property and wellbeing.

JUDGMENT

The petitioners, aged 80 and 74 respectively, have approached this Court seeking the following prayers: “i) To call for the records relating to Exhibit P10 to Exhibit P12.

ii) To issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ or Order or Direction directing the respondents 1 and 2 to give adequate and effective police protection to the life of the petitioners and to the people helping them and to the property of the 1^st Petitioner and for the sale of the properties of the 1^st petitioner covered by Exhibit P4 and Exhibit P5 Title Deeds and for the sale and transportation of rubber trees of the 1^st petitioner and for taking income from the properties of the petitioner.

iii) Considering the exigencies and necessity for urgent consideration of the grievance voiced in this WPC production of English translation of documents in vernacular may kindly be dispensed with for the time being.

iv) To grant such other reliefs as this Hon’ble Court deems just and proper considering the facts and circumstances of the case.”

2. While admitting the writ petition on 21.12.2023, this Court passed the following order:

“2. The counsel for the petitioners seeks an interim relief on the ground that the 1^st petitioner is undergoing Haemo dialysis thrice a week and the 2^nd petitioner is paralyzed due to stroke, and they need money for the treatment. The petitioners have already sold rubber trees standing in the property of the 1^st petitioner, but the person who purchased the trees could not remove it, due to the obstruction of the 3^rd respondent.

Taking into consideration the fact that the 1^st petitioner is the absolute owner of the property in question, the 3^rd respondent has not obtained any right over the property, and the petitioners need money for the treatment, there will be an interim direction to the 2^nd respondent to see that adequate protection is granted to life of the petitioners and their men to remove the rubber trees from the property of the 1^st petitioner against the illegal acts of the 3^rd respondent.”

3. Heard Sri.Bobby Mathew Kothattukulam, the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri.Sunil Nath, the learned Government Pleader.

4. The petitioners have stated that they are seeking police protection against the 3^rd respondent, who is stated to be none other than their only son. Sri. K.R.Prathish, the learned counsel appearing for the party respondent, on the basis of instructions received, submitted that a civil suit is pending between the parties.

5. In any view of the matter, since the petitioners have only sought protection with regard the disposal of their properties standing in their own names, I am of the opinion that they are entitled to the protection as sought for.

In such circumstances, this writ petition would stand disposed of, directing the police authorities to provide adequate protection to the petitioners, if they seek the same, for the purpose of disposal of their properties. Needless to say, the petitioners shall also be entitled to protection for their life and property.

Sd/-