Dismissed¶48

Raja v. The Superintendent of Police

Madras HC18 Aug 2025WP Crl.(MD)/1032/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Dismissal of writ petition (criminal) seeking mandamus to prevent police/revenue officials from enabling private parties to take possession of land (S.No.506, Neerpalani village, Viralimalai/Pudukkottai) under guise of survey measurement; held purely a civil dispute with remedy before civil court and revenue authorities; survey notice dated 11.08.2025 for survey on 13.08.2025; petitioner acted as Manager for retired IAS officer; moved as 'lunch motion'; cross-referenced W.P.(MD)No.18203 of 2025; Article 226 Constitution of India; connected W.M.P(MD)No.268 of 2025 also dismissed.

What did the court decide?

No substantive relief; the petitioner was granted liberty to seek remedy before the revenue authorities and the appropriate civil forum. The writ petition and the connected miscellaneous petition W.M.P(MD)No.268 of 2025 were both dismissed.

Raja Vs The Superintendent of Police — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶48

Issue for consideration

Whether a writ of Mandamus should be issued forbearing the official respondents from enabling respondents 7 to 9 to take possession of S.No.506 of Neerpalani village under the guise of measurement of the land. +1 more

¶24

Court's answer

This is purely a civil dispute and the petitioner must seek his remedy before the appropriate civil court.

¶6

Ratio / Principle

Besides the civil court, the petitioner also has the remedy of raising his objections before the concerned revenue authorities, including in the pending writ petition W.P.(MD) No.18203 of 2025.

¶6

Key takeaways

Considering the manner in which a representative of a retired IAS officer filed the application (having taken the law into his own hands and prevented officials from conducting the survey), the Court decided to dismiss the writ petition, with liberty to seek remedy before the revenue authorities and the appropriate civil forum.ratio¶48

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (Madurai Bench), B.PUGALENDHI, J. — W.P.Crl.(MD)No.1032 of 2025 and W.M.P(MD)No.268 of 2025 (decided 18.08.2025): The petitioner, employed as a Manager on a farm belonging to a retired IAS officer of the Gujarat cadre and claiming to act for the owner of land in S.No.506 of Neerpalani village, filed a writ petition under Article 226 seeking a writ of Mandamus forbearing police and revenue officials (Superintendent of Police, Pudukkottai; DSP Keeranur; Inspector, Mathur PS; SI, Mandaiyur PS; Tahsildar and Taluk Surveyor, Viralimalai) from enabling private respondents 7 to 9 (Jegadesan, Aditya, Kavidass) to take possession of the land under the guise of its measurement. Revenue records showed Survey No.506/1 stands in the name of the 9th respondent, who had applied for a survey and filed W.P.(MD)No.18203 of 2025; the Tahsildar issued notice dated 11.08.2025 fixing the survey for 13.08.2025, which could not proceed because the petitioner objected. The Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that no complaint had been received from the petitioner. The Court held the matter to be purely a civil dispute, directed that the petitioner must seek his remedy before the appropriate civil court and also retains the remedy of raising objections before the concerned revenue authorities, and accordingly dismissed the writ petition and the connected miscellaneous petition, granting liberty to pursue those remedies.

¶1

W.P.Crl.(MD)No.1032 of 2025

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 18.08.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI

¶6

Writ Petition Criminal (MD) No.1032 of 2025 and

¶7

W.M.P(MD)No.268 of 2025

Raja

..Petitioner

1.The Superintendent of Police Pudukkottai District.

¶12

2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Keeranur.

¶13

3.The Inspector of Police, Mathur Police Station, Pudukkottai District.

¶14

4.The Sub Inspector of Police, Mandaiyur Police Station, Pudukkottai District.

¶15

5.The Tahsildar, Viralimaial Taluk, Pudukkottai District.

¶16

6.The Taluk Surveyor, Viralimalai Taluk, Pudukkottai District.

¶17

7.Jegadesan

¶18

8.Aditya

¶19

¶20

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶21

W.P.Crl.(MD)No.1032 of 2025

¶22

... Respondents

¶23

9.Kavidass

¶24

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus forbearing the official respondents to enable the respondents 7 to 9 to take possession in S.No.506 of Neerpalani village under the guise of measurement of the same.

¶25

For Petitioner : Mr.P.Ganapathy Subramanian

¶26

For Respondents : Mr.E.Antony Sahaya Prabahar Addl. Public Prosecutor (for R1 to R4)

¶27

Mr.F.Deepak (for R5 & R6)

¶28

ORDER

¶29

The petitioner, who is employed as a Manager on a farm belonging to a retired IAS officer of the Gujarat cadre, has filed this application on behalf of his employer, claiming that his employer is the owner of the land in S.No.506 of Neerpalani Village. According to

¶30

the petitioner, the private respondents have attempted to take possession of the property by removing the fence erected by him. The petitioner lodged a complaint and filed this application seeking a direction restraining Respondents 7 to 9 from taking possession of S.No.506 under the guise of measurement.

¶31

2/7

¶32

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶33

W.P.Crl.(MD)No.1032 of 2025

¶34

The learned counsel for the petitioner, relying on certain

¶35

photographs, submitted in the morning that, with the help of an advocate, the 9th respondent was attempting to encroach upon the petitioner’s property. According to him, the fencing erected by the petitioner had also been forcibly removed by the revenue officials, as well as by the advocates acting along with the 9th respondent. On the basis of these averments, the counsel for the petitioner requested an urgent hearing in the afternoon, and this Court permitted the petitioner to move this application as a “lunch motion.”

¶36

The petitioner has filed this application seeking a writ of Mandamus, restraining the official respondents from taking possession of his property in S.No.506 of Neerpalani Village. He has also sought an interim injunction restraining the respondents 7 to 9 from erecting any fencing in Survey No.506 of Neerpalani Village.

¶37

The learned Special Government Pleader has furnished a copy of the revenue records and submits that the land in Survey No. 506/1 stands in the name of the 9th respondent. The 9th respondent has filed an application seeking to conduct a survey and measure the boundaries of Survey No.506/1. He has also filed writ petition before this Court in W.P.(MD)No.18203 of 2025. Pursuant to this, the

¶38

3/7

¶39

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶40

W.P.Crl.(MD)No.1032 of 2025

¶41

Tahsildar of Viralimalai issued a notice to all stakeholders, including the petitioner, for conducting the survey of the land in Survey No. 506/1 on 13.08.2025. Accordingly, the survey was scheduled. However, according to the learned Special Government Pleader, when the officials were present to conduct the survey, the petitioner raised objections, and as a result, the survey could not be completed. He further submits that the petitioner, as the Manager of the landowner, had received the notice dated 11.08.2025.

¶42

The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the

¶43

notice dated 11.08.2025 was not served on the petitioner.

¶44

This is purely a civil dispute. The petitioner must seek his remedy before the appropriate civil court. In the writ petition filed before this Court in W.P.(MD) No.18203 of 2025, the petitioner also has the remedy of raising his objections before the concerned revenue authorities. However, the petitioner, claiming to be the Manager of a property belonging to a retired IAS officer, has taken the law into his own hands, prevented the officials from conducting the survey, and filed the present petition, contending that the fencing erected by him was removed. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor, however, submits that no complaint has been received from the petitioner.

¶45

4/7

¶46

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶47

W.P.Crl.(MD)No.1032 of 2025

¶48

Considering the manner in which a representative of a retired IAS officer has filed this application, this Court is inclined to dismiss the application, with liberty to seek remedy before the revenue authorities and the appropriate civil forum. Accordingly, granting such liberty, this writ petition is dismissed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.

¶49

18.08.2025

¶50

NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes/No Internet:Yes skn

¶51

¶52