R. Mariappan v. The Director General Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 23.10.2024 CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.MURALI SHANKAR W.P.(MD)No.25233 of 2024 and W.M.P(MD)No.21426 of 2024 R.Mariappan

...Petitioner

Vs.

1.The District General of Police, Mylapore, Chennai - 600 004.

2.The Inspector General of Police, Dindigul Range, Dindigul.

3.The Superintendent of Police, Dindigul District, Dindigul.

4.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Oddanchathram, Dindigul District.

5.The Inspector of Police, 6.Sivakumar, Inspector of Police, 1/6

7.The Sub-Inspector of Police, 8.J.Balamurugan ... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents 5 to 7 not to interfere in the civil matter of possession and enjoyment of the petitioner's agricultural landed properties which was purchased in the year 2012, comprised in S.No.12/7A, 226/4D, 87/4C, 89/3, 89/6A, 90/1 and 90/2 situated at Old Kannivadi Village and Chathirapatti Village, Oddanchatram Taluk, Dindigul District by adhring to the Circular issued by the first respondent, on the basis of the representation of the petitioner, dated 01.10.2024. For Petitioner : Mr.R.Kannan For Respondents : Mr.E.Antony Sahaya Prabahar, Additional Public Prosecutor, for R1 to R5.

ORDER

The Writ Petition has been filed, invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking orders, to direct the respondents 5 to 7 not to interfere in the civil matter of possession and enjoyment of the petitioner's 2/6

agricultural landed properties which was purchased in the year 2012, comprised in S.No.12/7A, 226/4D, 87/4C, 89/3, 89/6A, 90/1 and 90/2 situated at Old Kannivadi Village and Chathirapatti Village, Oddanchatram Taluk, Dindigul District by adhring to the Circular issued by the first respondent, on the basis of the representation of the petitioner, dated 01.10.2024.

2.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State would submit that though the petitioner has purchased the property in the year 2012 and leased out the same to one Palaiah; that the said Palaiah has given a complaint against the eighth respondent and that the eighth respondent's wife has given a complaint against the said Palaiah and the same are pending enquiry.

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that on the basis of the complaint given by the eighth respondent's wife, the sixth respondent has been threatening the petitioner to part with the property. 3/6

4. Considering the above, the fourth respondent is directed to issue notice to the petitioner, private respondents and the eighth respondent's wife and also the said Palaiah and conduct enquiry in respect of the complaint given by the eighth respondent's wife as well as the compliant given by the said Palaiah and take a decision with a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.

23.10.2024 NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/ No das 4/6

To 1.The District General of Police, Mylapore, Chennai - 600 004.

2.The Inspector General of Police, Dindigul Range, Dindigul.

3.The Superintendent of Police, Dindigul District, Dindigul.

4.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Oddanchathram, Dindigul District.

5.The Inspector of Police, 6.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

5/6

K.MURALI SHANKAR, J das Order made in W.P.(MD)No.25233 of 2024 and W.M.P(MD)No.21426 of 2024 Dated : 23.10.2024 6/6