Disposed

R. Thirapathi, v. State Rep. by

Madras HC23 Apr 2013WP(MD)/4700/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought a writ directing police authorities to act against a fourth respondent interfering with his property possession. The Civil Court had previously rejected the fourth respondent's tenancy claims. The court directed appropriate action if further interference occurs.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was disposed of with a direction that if the fourth respondent interferes with peaceful possession, the third respondent shall take appropriate action on merits.

R. Thirapathi, Vs State Rep. by — Property and Title | Madras HC (2013)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 23.04.2013

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.SASIDHARAN

¶6

W.P.(MD)No.4700 of 2013 and M.P.No.1 of 2013

¶7

R.Uthirapathi : Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

1.The State, rep by, The Superintendent of Police, Thanjavur, Thanjavur District.

¶10

2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Thirupalathurai, Papanasam, Papanasam, Thanjavur District.

¶11

3.The Inspector of Police, Papanasam Police Station, Thanjavur District.

¶12

4.S.Rajendran : Respondents

¶13

PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issue of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 3 herein to take suitable action against the fourth respondent and provide adequate police protection to the petitioner and his property based on the petitioner's representation dated 25.02.2013.

¶14

For Petitioner : Mr.B.Jameel Arasu For Respondents : Mr.A.Muthukaruppan Additional Government Pleader

¶15

O R D E R

¶16

The petitioner seeks a Writ of Mandamus directing the Superintendent of Police, Thanjavur and other police authorities to take action against the fourth respondent and provide him adequate protection.

¶17

The petitioner purchased the property in Survey No.130/2, as per the sale deed dated 17.08.2002. Thereafter, patta in respect of the property was transferred. The fourth respondent filed a Civil Suit in O.S.No.139 of 2004 against the vendor of the petitioner and the said suit was dismissed. Thereafter, he filed an appeal A.S.No.25 of 2009. The appeal was also dismissed. The fourth respondent approached the Tahsildar claiming tenancy rights. The said application was rejected on 27.07.2012. Thereafter, the fourth respondent started to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property by the vender of the petitioner and later the possession of the property of the petitioner. This made the petitioner to submit a representation before the respondents 1 to 3 requesting police protection. Since there was no follow up action at the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ instance of respondents 1 to 3, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶18

¶19

The petitioner has already given a complaint before the third respondent alleging that the fourth respondent interfered in his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property. The decree passed by the Civil Court in O.S.No.139 of 2004 is binding on the parties. When the Civil Court has already rejected the claim made by the fourth respondent, the petitioner was justified in his contention that the fourth respondent cannot interfere in his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property.

¶20

In case the fourth respondent interferes in the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property in Survey No.130/2, it is open to the petitioner to prefer a complaint before the third respondent and in the event of making any such complaint, appropriate action should be taken by the third respondent on merits.

¶21

The Writ Petition is disposed of with the above direction. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶22

Sd/Assistant Registrar(AS)

¶23

/True Copy/

¶24

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶25

¶26

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

¶27

2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Thirupalathurai, Papanasam, Papanasam, Thanjavur District.

¶28

3.The Inspector of Police, Papanasam Police Station, Thanjavur District.

¶29

+1C.C. to the Special Government Pleader in Sr.No.24506

¶30

W.P.(MD)No.4700 of 2013 23.04.2013

¶31

¶32

PBK 14/05/2013 2P/5C

¶33

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

R. Thirapathi, v. State Rep. by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R. Thirapathi, v. State Rep. by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Godwin, Vs the Branch Manager

M. Mahaboob Ali, Vs Tamil Nadu Wakf Board

G. Gunasekaran, Vs the Assistant Engineer

M.Rajesh, Vs the District Collector

V. Baskaran, Vs the Branch Manager

R. Parmban Arulraj, Vs the District Collector