← Library
Madras High CourtWP Crl.(MD)/1334/2026disposed of

Ganesan v. The District Collector,

2026-03-10Honourable Mrs Justice L.Victoria Gowri6 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated : 10/03/2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE L. VICTORIA GOWRI Ganesan ... Petitioner Vs 1.The District Collector, District Collector Office Complex, Pudukottai.

2.The Superintendent of Police, Pudukottai District.

3.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Deputy Superintendent of Police Office, Pudukottai District, Pudukottai.

4.The Inspector of Police, Pudukottai Town Police Station, Pudukottai.

5.Mohammed Ali 6.Mohamed Ismail ... Respondents 1/6

PRAYER :- Writ Petition Criminal filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 to 4 to remove the welding Iron rod in the shop in T.S.No.2605/1, South Raja Veethi, Pudukottai Road and to take action against the respondents 5 and 6 by the respondents 1 to 4 herein as per the petitioner's complaint dated 21.02.2025.

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Kumaravel For Respondents : Mr.C.Satheesh Government Advocate (Civil Side) for R.1 Mr.S.Ravi Additional Public Prosecutor for R.2 to R.4 Mr.Mohideen Basha for R.5 & R.6

ORDER

This Writ Petition Criminal is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 to 4 to remove the welding Iron rod in the shop in T.S.No. 2605/1, South Raja Veethi, Pudukottai Road and to take action against the respondents 5 and 6 by the respondents 1 to 4 herein as per the petitioner's complaint dated 21.02.2025.

2/6

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondents 5 and 6 are forcibly trying to evict him in the shop situated in the above address. He is a tenant in the said shop for past more than 10 years and now taking law in their hand, the respondents 5 and 6 are trying to evict the petitioner.

3. Learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) submitted that, already in this matter an enquiry is conducted and the petitioner and 5th and 6th responders had appeared and they have undertaken to resolve the disputes between them before a competent civil court and hence the matter was closed.

4. The Learned counsel for the 5th and 6th respondents categorically submitted that they are the land owners of the said property and there was no rental agreement with the petitioner at any point of time and the petitioner is none other than an encroacher who had possibly taken the possession of the said property for more than 35 years. 3/6

5. Heard either sides and carefully perused the materials available on record.

6. As rightly pointed out by the learned Government Advocate, the entire dispute involved is civil in nature and the learned counsel for the petitioner claimed that the petitioners are in possession of the said shop for more than 35 years. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the 5th and 6th respondents categorically stated that the petitioner is none other than an encrocher. In view of the submissions, this Court directs the respective parties to approach the competent civil Court.

7. With the above direction, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.

10.03.2026 NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No pnn 4/6

To 1.The District Collector, District Collector Office Complex, Pudukottai.

2.The Superintendent of Police, Pudukottai District.

3.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Deputy Superintendent of Police Office, Pudukottai District, Pudukottai.

4.The Inspector of Police, Pudukottai Town Police Station, Pudukottai.

5.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

5/6

L. VICTORIA GOWRI,J pnn

ORDER

IN WP CRL(MD) No.1334 of 2026 Date : 10/03/2026 6/6