Madras High Court
M.Saravanan vs The Deputy Commissioner Of Police
Author: P.N.Prakash
Bench: P.N.Prakash
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Reserved on : 15.06.2015 Delivered on : 23.06.2015 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.N.PRAKASH CRL.O.P.Nos.5138 and 5139 of 2015 M.Saravanan ... Petitioner in Crl.OP.No.5138/2015 M.Jegatheesan ... Petitioner in Crl.OP.No.5139/2015 Versus 1.The Deputy Commissioner of Police, Ambattur Range, Avadi, Chennai-54. 2.The Inspector of Police, Mangadu Police Station, Chennai-122. 3.R.Malathy Director, Indus Sea-farers Training Academy, Indus Campus, Manalisaravana Street, Gangai Amman Koil, Kunrathur Main Road, Mangadu, Chennai-122. 4.Prakash Director, Indus Sea-farers Training Academy, Indus Campus, Manalisaravana Street, Gangai Amman Koil, Kunrathur Main Road, Mangadu, Chennai-122. ... Respondents in Crl.OP.Nos.5138 & 5139/2015 Prayer in Crl.OP.No.5138 of 2015 : Criminal Original petition filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code praying to direct the 2nd respondent to provide necessary police protection to the petitioner in respect of the property bearing plot No.29 in new survey No.539/1A9 in Mangadu. Prayer in Crl.OP.No.5139 of 2015 : Criminal Original petition filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code praying to direct the 2nd respondent to provide necessary police protection to the petitioner in respect of the property bearing plot No.28 in new survey No.539/1A8 in Mangadu. For Petitioner : Mr.S.Jim Raj Milton in both Crl.OPs For Respondents : Mr.C.Emalias, APP [for R1 and R2] in both Crl.OPs Mr.V.R.Thangavelu [for R3 and R4] C O M M O N O R D E R
These petitions have been filed praying to direct the 2nd respondent to provide necessary police protection to the petitioner in respect of the properties bearing plot Nos.28 in new survey No.539/1A8 and plot No.29 in new survey No.539/1A9 in Mangadu respectively.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners; learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents 1 and 2; learned counsel appearing for the respondents 3 and 4 and perused the materials placed on record.
3. The land measuring 5.92 acres in survey Nos.538, 539, 541 and 546/2 in Mangadu village originally belonged to Cine Technicians Association of South India. Cine Technicians Association of South India leased out 3acres of land out of 5.90 acres to Indus Sea-farers Training Academy for 99 years through a registered lease deed dated 08.07.2002 in document No.3780 of 2002 on the file of the Sub Registrar, Kunrathur. Thus, Indus Sea-farers Training Academy holds a lease for 99 years begining from 08.07.2002 to 07.07.2101 to an extent of 3 acres. The property was leased out to Indus Sea-farers Training Academy to establish a training college for mariners. Indus Sea-farers Training Academy obtained necessary permission from the Government of India, Ministry of Shipping and they have established a training academy in the said land.
4. Cine Technicians Association of South India has sold the balance of 2.92 acres to various persons and a layout of housing plots appears to has cropped up there.
5. The petitioners herein namely Jegatheesan and Saravanan have purchased plot No.29 and 28 from one Senthamarai and Valliammai respectively. It is the case of the petitioners that, when they attempted to fence their plots, they are being prevented by Indus Sea-farers Training Academy and therefore, they are seeking for a direction to the police to give them protection for fencing the property.
6. According to the petitioners, their predecessors in title had filed OS.No.376 to 383 of 2008 against Indus Sea-farers Training Academy and had obtained a decree in their favour in respect of the plots, despite which, the Training Academy is preventing them from putting up a fence. According to Indus Sea-farers Training Academy, the said two plots fall within the 3 acres of land that was leased out to them by Cine Technicians Association of South India and that Cine Technicians Association of South India have deliberately sold those plots without title.
7. On account of the dispute between the parties, there were complaints and counter complaints filed before the police which ultimately resulted in Section 145 Cr.P.C proceedings being initiated by the Tahsildar. The Tahsildar passed an order on 25.11.2013 in which he has given a finding that the plots in dispute do not fall within the 3 acres land that was leased to Indus Sea-farers Training Academy and he has also given a finding that Indus Sea-farers Training Academy has encroached upon Government poramboke lands in survey No.540.
8. Challenging the Tahsildar's order dated 25.11.2013, Indus Sea-farers Training Academy preferred WP.No.34048 of 2013 before this Court and the petitioners herein got themselves impleaded as respondents 12 and 14 and a learned Single Judge of this Court dismissed the writ petition on 11.02.2015 upholding the order of the Tahsildar and further observed as follows:
"... In fact, the impugned proceedings sets out in detail, the civil litigation between the parties. From the facts noted above, it is evidently clear that as on date, the petitioner does not have any decree of the Civil Court protecting his interest, rather the plot owners who are the private respondents herein have succeeded before the Civil Court and obtained an order of permanent injunction against the petitioner. Further, it is seen that the suits filed by the petitioner have been dismissed for default and the appeal filed by the petitioner as against the decree obtained by the private respondents, there is no interim order. Therefore, the observations made by the 2nd respondent in the impugned order is perfectly justified by directing the parties to work out their rights before the Civil Court. The petitioner appears to be aggrieved by the observations made in the penultimate line of the impugned order, wherein a direction has been issued stating that Police Assistance would be sought for. The private respondents having obtained a decree of permanent injunction, if there is any violation of decree, it is always open to them to approach the competent authority seeking police aid. Therefore, any observations in the impugned order can only be held to be superflows, merely because, the 2nd respondent has made such observation, it cannot automatically mean that the 2nd respondent can direct the police to interfere in the matter. It is for the private respondents to work out their rights in their manner known to law, if there is any violation of the decree of injunction obtained by them.
9. Now, the petitioners are before this Court for a direction to provide police protection for fencing the land. It is seen that there is a valid decree dated 03.09.2009 in OS.No.376 to 383 of 2008 against Indus Sea-farers Training Academy and further, the suit that were filed by the Indus Sea-farers Training Academy in OS.No.1232 of 2008 before the District Munsif, Sriperumbudur was dismissed on 19.12.2011. Similarly, another suit in OS.No.4036 of 2011 filed by the Indus Sea-farers Training Academy before the XV Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai was also dismissed on 16.08.2012.
10. Mr.Thangavelu, learned counsel appearing for Indus Sea-farers Training Academy submitted that all the suit were dismissed for default. But that cannot be a good reason for denying the relief claimed by the petitioners. Mr.Thangavelu, learned counsel appearing for the Academy submitted the approved layout of the area in support of his plea that the petitioners are encroachers. He also submitted that Indus Sea-farers Training Academy has filed a new suit in OS.No.38 of 2015 before the District Munsif, Sriperumbudur against these petitioners and the said suit is pending. Therefore, he submitted that the relief as prayed for by the petitioners should not be granted.
11. This Court carefully considered the rival submissions and found that the dispute between the Academy and the predecessors in interest of the petitioners was settled by the decree dated 03.09.2009 in OS.No.379 to 387 of 2008 passed by the Principal District Munsif, Sriperumbudur. It was a contested decree, despite which, the Academy was not prepared to adhere to it. The suits filed by the Academy from time to time were dismissed.
12. The Tahsildar who conducted the enquiry under Section 145 Cr.P.C has given a categorical finding that the plots in question that were purchased by these petitioners do not fall within the leased out area and further the Academy has encroached into Government lands. That apart, the Academy has completely suppressed the facts relating to Section 145 proceedings held by the Tahsildar and other relevant facts in the plaint in OS.No.38 of 2015. Mr.Thangavelu strenuously contended that the approved layout is self explanatory, as it shows the encroachment made by the petitioners. This Court is unable to buy this submission because, the Tahsildar has given the findings based on spot inspection and physical measurements done by the Surveyor. A layout map, however well prepared, cannot have the effect of over riding the findings of Revenue Officials after spot inspection. Two small Davids who are the owners of housing plots are fighting a mammoth Goliath for safeguarding their tiny possessions that stood validated by the decree dated 03.09.2009.
13. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that this is a fit case to direct the respondents 1 and 2 to provide police protection to the petitioners. In the result, these petitions are allowed as prayed for. The respondent police is directed to provide sufficient police protection to the petitioners to fence their housing plots and take criminal action against anyone who causes obstruction.
23.06.2015 gya To
1.The Deputy Commissioner of Police, Ambattur Range, Avadi, Chennai-54.
2.The Inspector of Police, Mangadu Police Station, Chennai-122.
P.N.PRAKASH, J., gya Pre-Delivery Order in CRL.O.P.Nos.5138 & 5139 of 2015 23.06.2015