Police Protection Has To Be Granted When Lawful Possession Is Disturbed By Persons Having No Personal Right To Possession: Kerala High Court

The High Court was considering two petitions seeking a direction for the enjoyment and effective use of properties without any obstruction from the private respondents. One of the petitions was filed by a company, and the other was filed by the parent of a school-going student.

The Single Bench of Justice N.Nagaresh held, “The parties claiming right on the basis of documents are entitled to be in possession of the property and that possession cannot be disturbed by unlawful acts of persons who do not claim possessory right over the property. If lawful possession is disturbed by persons having no personal right to possession, police protection has to be granted.”

Advocate K.B.Pradeep represented the Petitioner, while Advocate G. Krishnakumar represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The petition was filed by the petitioner whose daughter is studying in CA Higher Secondary School, seeking to command respondents to ensure that the School ground of CAHSS is used solely for CA Higher Secondary School and as a playground of the said School for the benefit of the students. The petitioner claimed that the School, as well as the educational authorities, are bound to protect the School ground in the larger public interest, and the Petitioner company cannot be permitted to usurp the School ground illegally. The petitioner Company, owning a Football Club, on the other hand alleged that they had purchased the land and had absolute title over the properties which were lying as a single compact plot.

The Petitioner intended to use the land effectively as a regular practice ground for the Club teams. In 2018, when the petitioner took steps to measure the property with the help of revenue authorities, one of the private respondents and others obstructed measurement. The petitioner hence filed a suit which was decreed ex-parte. The petitioner stated that certain persons were obstructing the utilisation of the petitioner's property, alleging that the property was once used as a playground of the nearby School. Though the petitioner filed a complaint before the third respondent-Sub, Sub-Inspector, however, the police did not give effective police protection. It was in such circumstances that the petition came to be filed before the High Court.

Reasoning

On a perusal of the facts of the case, the Bench noted that the petitioner-Company was holding title deeds in respect of the property, which were not challenged from any quarters successfully. Moreover, the School authorities did not have a case that they held title documents to establish that when the School was transferred to them, the School ground was also transferred.

“It is to be further noted that the land which is stated to be playground is situated 500 metres away from the School. The fact that the said ground was earlier used for conducting District and State Level School Sports Meets cannot be taken as an indicator to hold that the playground belongs to CA HSS”, it noted.

The Bench further noticed that since 2010, the petitioner-Company has been in possession and ownership of the land. The Company is paying tax for the land. “In the afore circumstances, there is prima facie evidence that the petitioner-Company is the owners of the disputed land who are in possession. Therefore, if the petitioner-Company is maintaining the land or if they are levelling that land for any purpose, third parties cannot physically obstruct the same contending that it is a School ground. This would be especially so when the School authorities have no claim that they are in possession of any title documents to claim ownership of the said land”, it held.

Allowing the company’s petition, the Bench directed the Official Respondents to grant necessary police protection to the petitioner Company for the enjoyment and effective use of properties without any obstruction from the respondents.

Cause Title: Sree Gokulam Chit and Finance Co. (P) Ltd v. The District Superintendent of Police (Neutral Citation: 2025:KER:69929)

Appearance

Petitioner: Advocates K.B.Pradeep, Harisankar R, Namitha Shaji

Respondent: Senior Advocate P.B.Krishnan, Advocates G. Krishnakumar, Sabu George, P.B. Subramanyan, Manu Vyasan Peter, Agnet Jarard, Government Pleader Anima M.

Click here to read/download Order