JAMEELA Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is filed by an old lady along with her daughter in law and her children, seeking protection for their lives and also for their properties, particularly the 'makham' and the 'tombs' which exists on the properties from what is alleged in the writ petition to be illegal actions by respondents 9 and 10. The petitioners have a grievance that the authorities of the police, including respondents 3 to 8, are not taking effective action on various petitions filed by them and particularly it is stated that Ext.P4 representation submitted before the 3rd respondent is kept pending without taking any action. On considering this writ petition for admission, this Court passed the following order on 1.7.2011.

(2.) TODAY Sri.M.P.Krishnan Nair, the counsel for the petitioners submitted that, the interim order directing protection for the lives of the petitioners, has not been obeyed by the police officers. According to him, after receipt of the copy of the interim order, the police officers were moved in vain. He submitted that the application filed by the petitioner for issuance of a commission, be allowed so that a report can be obtained as to what is the state of affairs prevailing in the property. According to him, respondents 9 and 10 and persons who are the office bearers of the local Jama-ath and others acting under them, have demolished the two tombs on the property wherein the mortal remains of two saints who were popularly known as 'Chomayil Uppappas', remains buried and excavation works are being done there even now with the blessings of the police.

(3.) HAVING very anxiously considered the submissions addressed at the bar, we feel that the issue of the petitioners being permitted to preserve the two tombs situated in the petitioners' property as a place of public worship, should be left to be decided by a competent Civil court. We feel that several complicated questions are likely to arise before the civil court. Coming to the question of granting protection to the lives of the petitioners, we are not convinced that at present there is any imminent threat to the lives of the petitioners. This Court has already passed interim orders permitting the petitioners to approach the 8th respondent, when there is any real threat to their lives or persons and that on receiving such complaints, the 8th respondent shall take necessary action thereupon in accordance with law. We confirm the above interim direction issued in favour of the petitioners. As regards the disputes about the tombs on the property and the property itself, we relegate to the petitioners to approach a competent civil court. If the petitioners are desirous of facilitating the filing of a report by the Commissioner, petition in that regard can be submitted to the civil court. The petitioners have a further complaint that, even they are not being permitted to offer prayers at the tombs. As regards this complaint, we direct the 8th respondent to ensure that the petitioners, who are apparently title holders of the lands, on which tombs are constructed should not be prevented from offering prayers at the two tombs.