M. FARISA BEEVI Vs. SUPDT. OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a writ petition filed by one M. Farisa Beevi, who is the owner of 1.50 acres of garden land in Velinalloor Village. In this petition she has sought for a direction from this court to respondents 1 to 3 to grant adequate police protection to cut and remove the rubber trees from her garden land and to carry out the replantation work.

(2.) The background of the case can be summarised thus: The above said 1.50 acres of land owned by the petitioner is fully planted with rubber trees. The tapping work was done by the petitioner herself for a long time. When she fell ill, she engaged 4th respondent, Jameela Beevi for tapping the rubber on daily wages for a period of one year. Her services were terminated after paying all the amounts legally due to her. Thereafter, the petitioner herself was doing the tapping work. However, the 4th respondent and her husband respondent trespassed on the aforesaid property and destroyed rubber trees. Apprehending the continued trespass and destruction of the trees, she filed suit O. S. No. 265/90 before the Munsiff's Court, Kottarakkara praying for a permanent injunction restraining the respondents 4 and 5 from entering the property and cutting and removing timber trees. In that suit an ex parte decree, evidenced by Ext. P1 was passed on 31-7-1992. The said decree is still continuing in force. When the petitioner wanted to replant the area, a contract was entered with one Badarudeen on 12-1-1993. By the said contract, Mr. Badarudeen had agreed to cut and remove the old rubber trees and also replanting on payment of a sum of Rs. 18,500/-. He started the work pursuant to the contract on 19-1-1993. However, Mr. Badarudeen was forced to withdraw from contract and to escape from the scene in view of the threat of violence caused by the respondents 4 to 7. The contract could not therefore be enforced. The threat and violence by the respondents 4 to 7 was continued. In that 3 situation, the petitioner filed Ext. P2 representation before the Government on 27-6-1993. On the same day the copies of Ext. P2 was forwarded to the respondents 1 to 3 who are the police officers of the area. In Ext. P2 representation, the petitioner pleaded for adequate police protection to cut and remove all the rubber trees in the property in her possession. In that petition it is also pointed out that an order of injunction was obtained against the counter petitioners, therein, from the Munsiff's Court, Kottarakkara in O. S. No. 265/90. However, no tangible action was taken by the respondents 1 to 3 although the unlawful activities of the respondents 4 to 7 continued. It was in that background the present writ petition was filed.

(3.) The contesting respondents 4 to 7 filed a counter affidavit. Their contentions are summarised thus : The 4th respondent was appointed as a tapper in the year 1978 and on 1-4-1986 she was illegally denied the employment by the petitioner. The Kottarakkara Taluk Thottam Thozhilal Union raised an industrial dispute before the Labour Officer in respect of the denial of employment to the 4th respondent. There is a dispute also with regard to the non payment of wages as per the rules. The conciliation proceeding was initiated by the Labour Officer but with no success. The Munsiff's court has passed the decree in O. S. No. 265/90 without notice to the respondents. The contract referred to in the writ petition is only a pretext for the denial of employment to the 4th respondent. During the pendency of the industrial dispute, it is not proper for the petitioner to cut and remove the rubber trees or to take police action for denying the employment to the 4th respondent.