Madras High Court
A.K.Dhanapal vs The District Collector on 16 July, 2012
Author: Vinod K.Sharma
Bench: Vinod K. Sharma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATE: 16-07-2012 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA WRIT PETITION NO.20174 OF 2011 AND M.P.NO.1 OF 2011 1.A.K.Dhanapal, 2.G.Thamizharasu, 3.M.K.Kannan, 4.P.Gopal, 5.A.M.Devakumar, 6.A.N.Selvaraja Reddiar ... Petitioners Versus 1.The District Collector Vellore District, Vellore, 2.The Inspector of Police, Arcot Town Police Station, Arcot, 3.The District Crime Branch, rep.by the Inspector of Police, Vellore District Crime Branch, Vellore, 4.Mr.R.Purushothaman .. Respondents For Petitioner :: Mr.V.Parivalllal For Respondent :: Mr.R.Vijayakhumar, Addl.Govt.Pleader Prayer: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India for the relief of issuance of a writ of mandamus to forbear the respondents, their men, agents and officials from interfering with the personal and property right of the petition in respect of the possession and enjoyment of the immovable property in Arcot Town, Rasathupuram village old Survey No.270/2 and New Survey No.270/2H1, 8.22 acres and 272/2H11, 4.11 acres to the total extent of 12.33 acres till the matter is decided by the competent civil Court. ORDER
It is observed that the petitioners are the leading businessmen who hold responsible position in several social, spiritual and religious organisations, and command good respect in society.
2. That land measuring 12.33 acres in Survey No.270/2 (New Sub-division No.270/2H1 and 2H11) at Rasathupuram village, Walajah Taluk was under the ownership of Parthasarathi Mudaliar and Ranganathan, who were in possession and enjoyment of that property and patta was issued in their name.
3. The said Thiru.Parthasarathi and Thiru.Ranganathan had jointly purchased the land vide registered sale deed dated 20.2.1998, but in view of the fact that the land was sub-divided and new sub-division Numbers were assigned by the revenue and survey department, a mistake had crept in in the sale deed, however, the boundaries were correctly described.
4. The petitioners claim to be in possession of the property, but if it is not disclosed in the affidavit in what capacity petitioners have come in possession of the property.
5. It is the submission of the petitioners that respondent No.4 has no right, title or interest in the said property, but with an ulterior motive had started harassing the petitioners, by filing a petition with Taluk Legal Committee in July, 2008. On enquiry, it was found that he did not have any right in the property and the complaint filed by him was closed. However, by changing the format, he has filed another complaint against the petitioners.
6. In subsequent para of affidavit, it is pleaded that the petitioners had purchased the property about 12 years ago, and that patta was also issued in their name but no particulars have been given in the affidavit sowing from whom the petitioners had purchased the property nor details of sale deed is mentioned.
7. The submission of the petitioners is that if respondent No.4 has any right in property, he could move the Civil Court.
8. The petitioners issued a legal notice to respondent No.4. It is admitted in the affidavit that the District Crime Branch gave an opinion to register a criminal case as against the petitioners for offence under Section 465, 466, 468, 471 and 420 IPC vide Crime No.24 of 2011.
9. It is the case of the petitioners, that genuineness of the documents can be decided in Civil Court only and even in case of conviction in a criminal case, the possession of land can be taken through Civil Court by filing Execution Application if any decree passed in favour of respondent No.4.
10. It is also submitted that the application for anticipatory bail was rejected by the learned Sessions Judge, and the matter is now pending in this Court.
11. On the basis of pleadings referred to above, the prayer made in this writ petition, is to issue a writ in the nature of prohibition restraining respondent No.4 from interfering with the personal and private right of the petitioners with respect to the possession and enjoyment of immovable property, till decision by the Civil Court.
12. The writ petition, as framed, is totally misconceived, and amounts to misuse of process of the Court. The writ petition is in the nature of injunction against a private person. The private dispute as pleaded cannot be gone into in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
13. Otherwise also, it is admitted case of the petitioners that criminal case has been registered against them, and the dispute is also pending in the Civil Court.
14. It is not understood how the petitioners could invoke writ jurisdiction for grant of injunction pending civil suit. The writ petition, thus is totally misconceived and amounts to misuse of the process of the Court, therefore is ordered to be dismissed with costs. The costs are assessed at Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) . Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.
16.07.2012 usk Index: Yes Internet: Yes VINOD K.SHARMA, J.
usk To
1. The District Collector Vellore District, Vellore,
2. The Inspector of Police, Arcot Town Police Station, Arcot,
3. The District Crime Branch, rep.by the Inspector of Police, Vellore District Crime Branch, Vellore, W.P.NO.20174 OF 2011 16-07-2012