Shaffique, J. 1st petitioner claims to be owner in possession of land to the extent of 61 cents in Sy. No. 394/4 of Elamadu Village, which she claims to have obtained as per sale deed no. 3374/65 of Kottarakara Sub Registrar's Office. The complaint of the petitioner is regarding the illegal acts being committed by party respondents and their men. According to her, though she is in possession of the property, a suit has been filed by the party respondents claiming adverse possession and declaration of their possessory interest. The suit came to be dismissed against which, though an appeal has been filed as A.S. No. 40/2006, the same was also dismissed for default. Further, the party respondents claimed tenancy right before the Land Tribunal, which also came to be dismissed. Therefore, according to the petitioner, there is no surviving claim for the party respondents in respect of the property. But, when the petitioners started to unload certain materials for construction in the property, the same was obstructed by the 2nd respondent and his henchmen. A complaint was filed before the police, but no action had been taken in the matter and hence the petitioners have approached this W.P(C) No. 24630 of 2014 -: 2 :-
Court seeking police protection.
2. Counter affidavit has been filed by respondents 2 and 3 inter alia stating that they are in possession of the property. They have claimed tenancy right, which was rejected, against which they have preferred an appeal before the Land Reforms Appellate Authority, which is now pending consideration. According to them, pendency of the matter before the Appellate Authority was concealed by the petitioners.
3. The factual issue raised in the writ petition discloses that there is dispute between the parties in regard to possession over the property. Party respondents claimed property by way of adverse possession by filing a suit and thereafter they claimed tenancy right. The issue regarding possession has not become final so far on account of the pendency of the appeal before the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal. As far as the claim of the petitioners are concerned, they claim possession of the property which cannot, apparently, be adjudicated by the police, especially when the claim of possession has been disputed by party respondents. Under such circumstances, the remedy of the petitioners is to approach appropriate forum for adjudication of their rights, which cannot be resolved by the police.
W.P(C) No. 24630 of 2014 -: 3 :-
Hence, without mentioning anything regarding the merits of the case with reference to the right on the property, this writ petition is dismissed.
Tds/ Sd/-
Ashok Bhushan, Ag. Chief Justice Sd/-
A.M. Shaffique, Judge.