The Kerala High Court on Tuesday dismissed a plea filed by a 59-year-old woman from Kottayam seeking police protection over an alleged act of trespass and property damage. Justice N. Nagaresh, who heard the matter, observed that since the ownership of the disputed land was already the subject of ongoing civil and criminal proceedings, the court could not intervene under its writ jurisdiction.
Background
The petitioner, Mayadevi K.P, lives with her unmarried daughter in Thirunakkara, Kottayam. According to her, a small piece of land - 1.66 ares in Perumbaikadu village - stands registered in her daughter's name. The land, she said, is clearly demarcated with a compound wall and fixed boundaries.
Trouble began in March 2025, when she alleged that Mahesh Vijayan (the third respondent) and his associates entered the property and uprooted several fruit and timber trees, including jackfruit, coconut, and tamarind. They also allegedly demolished the boundary wall, claiming the land belonged to them under a court decree.
Mayadevi complained to the local police but said they refused to act, forcing her to approach the High Court for protection.
"We were terrified when they came with workers and started cutting trees," she had told her lawyer, according to court records.
Respondents Stand
On the other side, Mahesh Vijayan and his co-respondents strongly opposed her petition. They contended that the land originally belonged to one A.N. Natarajan (the fifth respondent) and that Mahesh's son had already won a civil suit (O.S. No. 569/2010) in the Sub Court, Kottayam, for specific performance. The property, they said, was legally purchased through the court’s execution process.
The respondents further accused the petitioner of buying the land from a tainted auction sale, claiming that the earlier transaction - involving one Advocate K.P. Sreekumar - was fraudulent. The Additional Munsiff Court, they noted, had even ordered criminal proceedings under Section 340 CrPC against certain advocates and court staff involved in the earlier deal.
"The petitioner is using the police machinery to validate an illegal transaction," their counsel argued, warning that the court’s intervention could "create chaos in an already complicated civil dispute."
Court's Observations
Justice Nagaresh carefully examined the records and noted that the title of the land was under active dispute before both the civil and criminal courts. The judge pointed out that when ownership itself is uncertain, the High Court cannot direct police protection under Article 226 of the Constitution.
"The title to the property claimed by the petitioner’s daughter is in dispute," the bench observed. "In such circumstances, no police protection can be ordered merely on allegations of trespass."
The court acknowledged that several trees were allegedly destroyed but maintained that determining the truth of those claims would require factual findings that fall outside the High Court’s writ jurisdiction.
Decision
In the end, Justice Nagaresh dismissed the writ petition, leaving the petitioner to pursue remedies available under civil law. He emphasized that respondents cannot take the law into their own hands, but equally, the petitioner cannot seek police protection until her daughter's ownership rights are conclusively established by a competent court.
With that, the matter was laid to rest - at least for now - as the larger ownership dispute continues to play out in Kottayam's civil courts.
Case Title: Mayadevi K.P vs District Police Chief & Others
Case Number: W.P.(C) No. 14211 of 2025
Date of Judgment: 7 October 2025
