BENOY KURIAN Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, IDUKKI DISTRICT, IDUKKI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is before us seeking protection to the life and property from alleged threat by party respondents 7 to 15. The petitioner claims to be in possession of 7.75 acres of land in Sy.No.67/1 of Karunapuram Village, for which he has effected mutation as per Ext.P1 series basic tax receipts. The petitioner's properties were in the possession of his father Kuriakose and his brother Joseph. When the predecessors-in-interest of the petitioner were in possession and enjoyment of the property, some people in the locality attempted to interfere with their possession, which led to series of civil suits being filed. The party respondents herein are successors of the original trouble makers, who were litigating with the predecessors of the petitioner. The earliest of the suits was filed as O.S.No.113/1970 by Joseph and Kuriakose before the Munsiff's Court, Devikulam, for a perpetual injunction restraining the defendants therein from trespassing into the property scheduled therein and vide Ext.P2 judgment, the suit was decreed. But however, it was made clear that there is no bar for the Hindus in the locality from worshiping in the Temple situated between the plaint schedule properties. The said judgment and decree has become final as it was not challenged. During 1993, certain people claiming to be representing Ramakkalmedu Sree Durga Devi Kshethram once again attempted to trespass into the property, interfering with the possession of the property by the predecessors of the petitioner. They filed another suit as O.S.No.52/1993 before the Munsiff's Court, Idukki for a prohibitory injunction and other incidental reliefs. The so-called representatives of the Durga Devi Temple were arrayed as defendants in the suit. That suit too was decreed as per Exts.P3 and P4, restraining the defendants therein from either trespassing into the property or committing any waste therein. Though the defendants therein challenged the decree before the appellate court as A.S.No.35/1996, that too was dismissed as per Ext.P5 judgment. Thereafter, the party respondents herein, claiming to be representing the Ramakkalmedu Temple instituted a suit as O.S.No.163/2006 before the Munsiff's Court, Kattappana against the predecessors of the petitioner. Pending that suit, Kurian Kuriakose, the petitioner's father, died and his legal representatives were impleaded as additional defendants. The petitioner herein was the 6th defendant in that suit. Consequent to trial, the suit was dismissed as per Ext.P6 judgment. It was not challenged and has attained finality. Even after all these failures in the litigations, the party respondents have not chosen to refrain from their act of trespass and hence continued to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the property by the petitioner. A complaint was filed by the widow of Kurian Kuriakose as Ext.P7 on 06-05-2014. Another petition was filed as Ext.P8 on 04-06-2014 and Nedumkandam Police Station registered Ext.P9 Crime No.487/2014 against the accused. Representations were also made before the District Collector seeking interference and to prevent construction of the work going on in violation of various decrees. The District Collector issued stop memo as per Ext.P10 on 09-06-2014, which is still in force. Despite all these orders and decrees, the party respondents proceeded with the construction of the work, whenever they got opportunity. Kurian Joseph and Aleyamma Kuriakose filed another petition before the 1st respondent as per Ext.P11 on 12-11-2014. Though the work was stalled for sometime, it soon resumed due to indolence on the part of the authorities. Ext.P12 representation was made before the Tahsildar, Udumbanchola. Ext.P13 is another complaint filed before the 1st respondent by the petitioner. There is also a direction by the District Collector to respondents 3 to 6 to interfere in the matter. But all these orders and directions have been ignored by the police authorities and flouting the directions of the District Collector, the construction continues. Ext.P14 are the photographs, which is evidence of the construction being made in the property. The petitioner was left with no other option but to approach this Court seeking direction to respondents 3 to 6 to provide adequate and meaningful police protection to the petitioner and members of his family so as to enable them to enjoy the property having an extent of 7.75 acres covered by Exts.P1 and P1(a) tax receipts, without any interference by the party respondents or their henchmen.

(2.) None appeared for the party respondents, though served with notice. After hearing the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the Senior Government Pleader for respondents 1 to 6 and on perusal of the documents produced, we are convinced that the dispute between the party respondents and the petitioner are essentially civil in nature. The learned Senior Government Pleader, on instructions, submits that there is already a full-fledged Temple functioning in the property and being visited by several worshipers in the locality. On going through the earlier judgments concerning the party respondents produced before us, and from Ext.P2, it is adequately clear that there is already a Temple in existence in the property and the injunction was granted as per Ext.P2 to the plaintiffs therein subject to the condition that the Hindus of the locality were free to worship and make offerings in the Temple. Whether the present construction being made by the party respondents or other devotees, as seen from Ext.P14 photographs, is within the area specified in the judgment, and whether those parties have right to construct the Temple or renovate the same, are all matters to be adjudicated and decided by the civil court of competent jurisdiction. The District Collector has also made certain orders, which needs to be implemented by him. We cannot, sitting in a writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, direct the police authorities to interfere in a dispute, which is apparently civil in nature. Hence, we are not inclined to issue any positive direction to the police authorities. However, in case there is any complaint made by the petitioner, alleging any cognizable offence, or threat to life, the 6th respondent shall proceed it with in accordance with law. With these observations, the Petition is disposed of. No costs.