Police protection cannot override ongoing civil disputes and must be sought through competent courts.

JUDGMENT

Petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking the following relief:

“To issue a Writ of Mandamus or order or direction commanding the respondents 3 to 5 to provide effective and adequate police protection to the petitioner and his family for residing in the tharwad house with Door No.11/13, situated in Survey No.501/6 Ananagandi Panchayath/ Village, against the illegal acts of the respondents 6 to 18, and their henchmen, in the interest of justice.”

2. Petitioner is one of the co-owners of building No.11/13 of Ananganadi Panchayath situated in Survey No.501/6 Ananganadi Village. Petitioner alleges that the property is a thavazhi property, and a suit for partition has been filed as O.S. No.168/2004 before the Sub Court, Ottapalam, wherein, a preliminary decree was passed on 25.06.2008 as per Exhibit-P2 judgment. Subsequently, in the final decree application, an Advocate Commissioner was appointed and the tharwad house was allotted to the petitioner. According to the petitioner, though the Advocate Commissioner had filed a report allotting the tharwad house to him, final decree proceedings have not been completed due to certain pending suo motu proceedings under the Kerala Land Reforms Act , 1963. Petitioner claims that pursuant to the Advocate Commission report, he was put in possession of the tharwad house by consensus and that he had even renovated the house, but, surprisingly thereafter, the respondents threw the petitioner out of the house and are now illegally occupying it. It is at this juncture that petitioner has approached this Court seeking police protection. Petitioner also alleges that a complaint has been filed before the Revenue Divisional Officer under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act , 2001.

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

6 to 12 and 14 to 18 stating that the grievance raised by the petitioner stems from a pure civil dispute regarding partition and possession, and is the subject matter of a suit, and therefore, the relief sought for by the petitioner ought not to be granted. It is also stated that respondents have not, at any point in time, engaged in any act of violence against the petitioner and further that the petitioner had never resided in the tharwad house but had only attempted to take possession of the same without concurrence of the other members of the tharwad. It is also pleaded that petitioner's attempt to obtain police protection is with intent to override the rigour of the civil dispute and to take forcible possession of the property under the cover of an order of police protection. Respondents further alleged that petitioner has multiple properties, the details of which have been narrated in the counter affidavit.

4. A reply affidavit has also been filed controverting the contentions in the counter affidavit.

5. I have heard Sri. K. Ravi, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri. Arun Johny, the learned counsel for the contesting respondents as well as Smt. K. Amminikutty, the learned Senior Government Pleader.

6. The question regarding partition of the properties, including the tharawad house, is under consideration in O.S. No.168/2004 before the Sub Court, Ottappalam. Concededly, the final decree has not been passed in the said order. The alleged consensus among the sharers to hand over possession of the tharwad house to the petitioner is stoutly disputed by the respondents. In such circumstances, the question of possession or even handing over possession of the tharwad house to the petitioner cannot be decided by this Court in this proceeding, as that is a matter which will have to be deliberated upon by the Civil Court, especially since the final decree has not been passed.

7. In the decision in