Back
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA
T.S. Ravindran
Versus
The Commissioner of Police Chennai Sub-Urban St.Thomas Mount, Chennai & Others
W.P.No.18918 of 2011 & M.P.No.1 of 2011
Decided On : 23-02-2012
Mandamus - Property Dispute - The court held that the petitioner's request for a writ of prohibition to restrain the police from interfering in a civil property dispute was misconceived. The court emphasized that the appropriate remedy for the petitioner was to seek relief in a civil court for declaration and injunction, and that the police had a duty to take action under the provisions of the code of Criminal Procedure in the event of a breach of peace. The court also clarified that the police had no authority to settle civil disputes or determine property rights, and that writ jurisdiction could only be exercised on admitted facts.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought a writ of prohibition to restrain the police from interfering in a civil property dispute.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the writ petition to be misconceived and emphasized that the appropriate remedy for the petitioner was to seek relief in a civil court for declaration and injunction.
Issues: The issues involved the petitioner's request for a writ of prohibition to restrain the police from interfering in a civil property dispute, and the appropriate legal remedy for the petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi: The court clarified that the police had a duty to take action under the provisions of the code of Criminal Procedure in the event of a breach of peace, and that the police had no authority to settle civil disputes or determine property rights.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition, emphasizing that writ jurisdiction could only be exercised on admitted facts and awarded no costs.
Petitioner has approached this court with a prayer for issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus, actually a writ in nature of prohibition, restraining the respondents (i.e.,) Commissioner of Police and Inspector of Police from interfering in the civil dispute qua the petitioners property i.e., house site having 0.08 < cents in S.No.3/8, Kaspapuram Village, Tambaram Taluk, Kancheepuram District.
2. The petitioner claims to be the absolute owner of the property i.e house site as detailed herein above. The property was purchased by the petitioner vide sale deed dated 28.03.2002, vide Document No.1763/2005 registered with SRO, Tambaram. The petitioner purchased the property from the legal heirs of Umapathy Devar, who was the owners of the property.
3. The petitioner after purchase, raised a compound wall over the property, and also put up a hut thereon. In the month of January 2011, some unknown person unlawfully entered the site property by breaking open the gate and demolished a portion of compound wall.
4. The allegation of the petitioner is that offence of tresspass was committed by the persons. The Police on complaint by the petitioner registered a criminal case against unknown persons.
5. The case of the petitioner is that the unknown persons came to Police station and admitted that they wrongly entered the premises, and also restored the compound wall to original position. Their identity is not disclosed to the petitioner, for the reasons best known.
6. The case of the petitioner is that on 14.07.2011. another group of persons with intention to grab the property broke open the compound gate of the property and tresspassed into his shed. They also broke open the lock of the shed belonging to the petitioner and put up their own lock both on the gate and the shed. Petitioner filed a complaint on 14.07.2011, itself, with the Inspector of Police. The matter was investigated and petitioner was asked to put up another lock in the premises. It is not disclosed as to whether any proceedings under section 145 of code of criminal procedure was initiated or not.
7. The petitioner was thereafter asked to come to Police station on two occasions. The petitioner was asked to produce the original documents of title. In pursuance to the directions, the petitioner produced the original title deeds at that time 10 persons were present in the Police station.
8. No notice of these averments can be taken, as para 8 of the affidavit has been specifically denied by the Inspector, thus it is a case of disputed questions of fact.
9. The case of the petitioner further, is that the petitioner was directed to give an undertaking that at the expenses of the petitioner, property be measured, with a further undertaking that in case if he is found not to be the owner of the property, he would hand over the possession to the rightful owners.
10. The case of the petitioner is that instead of registering the case, the respondents, threatened to withdraw his complaint. This averments have also been specifically denied by the respondents in the counter.
11. It is submitted by the petitioner, that respondents are colluding with private persons, therefore representation was made to Commissioner of Police but till now no action thereof has been taken.
12. On consideration of the matter, I find that this writ petition is totally misconceived. The remedy with the petitioner to assert his right over the property is by moving the civil court for declaration, where he can lead evidence. The petitioner on proving prima facie case can also claim injunction. The petitioner could also file a complaint against the Police officials by name, who are said to have acted illegally, in interfering with the possession of the petitioner.
13. The averments made in the writ petition shows that in a civil dispute, where two parties are trying to assert their right over property.
14. In that situation the writ of prohibition restraining respondents 1 and 2 cannot
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
