SHOUKATHALI Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has come to this Court with this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issue of directions to respondents 1 to 3 to afford police protection to the petitioner for peaceful possession and enjoyment of his property. Respondents 4 to 6 are allegedly threatening such peaceful possession. THE petition, as worded, is one for police protection. But there are averments which suggest that respondents 1 to 3/police officials are harassing the petitioner to help respondents 4 to 6. In these circumstances, there is parallelly a request to eliminate police harassment.

(2.) ACCORDING to the petitioner, there is an agreement for sale. On the strength of that agreement for sale, he claims to be in possession of the property in question. Respondents 4 to 7 are bound by Ext.A1 agreement, it is contended. Though the petitioner is entitled to be in possession of the property under Ext.A1, his possession is being disturbed. He is not being permitted to take usufructs/ yields from the property.

(3.) THE petitioner, at this juncture, complains that police protection is not being afforded to him. Simultaneously and parallelly the allegation is raised that respondents 1 to 3 are helping respondents 4 to 6 and are harassing the petitioner.