P.Manikandamoorthy, v. The Superintendent Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 21.01.2022

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN W.P (MD). No. 7618 of 2019 P.Manikandamoorthy ... Petitioner -Vs1. The Superintendent of Police, Madurai District, Madurai.

2. The Inspector of Police, Silaiman Police Station, Madurai.

3. The Tahsildar, Madurai South Taluk, Madurai.

4. The Village Administrative Officer, Puliyankulam Village, Madurai South, Madurai.

... Respondents PRAYER : Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the second respondent not to interfere in civil dispute between the petitioner and the third and fourth respondents not to harass the petitioner in civil dispute.

For Petitioner : Mr.A.N.Ramanathan For Respondents : Mr.P.Kottai Chamy Government Advocate

O R D E R

This Writ Petition is filed seeking mandamus directing the second respondent not to interfere in civil dispute between the petitioner and the third and fourth respondents.

2. The second respondent is the Inspector of Police attached to Silaiman Police Station, Madurai. The third and fourth respondents are Tahsildar and Village Administrative Officer, Madurai South Taluk, Puliyankulam.

1/3

3. The grievance of the petitioner herein is that he purchased Plot No.5 in Survey No.43/1 vide sale deed dated 17.09.2008 from one Lalpack. Few more plots in the said survey numbers were purchased by him through valid sale deeds and he is in possession of the same. While so, the District Collector sanctioned the proposal for constructing Veterinary Hospital in the said land vide proceedings dated 19.04.2018. For the said purpose, the assignment granted in his favour was recommended to be cancelled. Challenging the said recommendation for cancelling the assignment, he preferred a Writ Petition in W.P (MD) No. 5397 of 2019 and obtained interim order on 07.03.2019. The interim order of stay is still in force. While so, the fourth respondent gave a complaint to the second respondent on 21.03.2019 to take action against the petitioner and another for trying to clear the land. Pursuant to the complaint, the second respondent is trying to interfere in the disputed land, for which, the petitioner is assigned patta.

4. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents states that pursuant to the complaint given by the fourth respondent dated 21.03.2019, the second respondent took up the investigation and after perusing the records produced by the petitioner herein and the complainant, the fourth respondent had directed not to disturb peace and the parties to maintain status quo and closed the complaint of the fourth respondent dated 21.03.2019. Therefore, the Writ Petition has to be dismissed.

5. On perusal of the pleadings and the statement made by the learned Government Advocate, this Court dispose the Writ Petition recording the statement of the learned Government Advocate that the second respondent is not interfering in the civil dispute between the patta holder and the State.

6. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar (As) // True Copy // / /2022 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) vji Note : In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate / litigant concerned.

2/3

To

1. The Superintendent of Police, Madurai District, Madurai.

2. The Inspector of Police, Silaiman Police Station, Madurai.

3. The Tahsildar, Madurai South Taluk, Madurai.

4. The Village Administrative Officer, Puliyankulam Village, Madurai South, Madurai.

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

W.P (MD). No. 7618 of 2019 21.01.2022 MGJ(09.02.2022) 3P 6C 3/3