JUDGMENT :

(Prayer in W.P.No.6664 of 2021: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction directing the respondents to give police protection to me for entering petitioner property bearing Survey No.C/2, Block No.34/7A Arani, Vellore Road, Thiruvannamalai District on the petitioner complaint dated 15.02.2021.

W.P.No.14074 of 2021: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other writ, order or direction, to direct the respondents to offer police protection to the petitioner to safeguard his position in the property situated C/2, Block No.34/7A, Arani, Vellore Road, Thiruvannamalai.)

1. W.P.No.6664 of 2021 has been filed to direct the respondents 1 to 3 to give Police protection to the petitioner for entering into his property bearing Survey No.C/2, Block No.34/7A, Arani, Vellore Road, Thiruvannamalai based on the complaint, dated 15.02.2021.

2. W.P.No.14074 of 2021 has been filed to direct the respondents 1 to 3 to give Police protection to the petitioner to safeguard his position in the property situated at Survey No.C/2, Block No.34/7A, Arani, Vellore Road, Thiruvannamalai.

3. Since the relief sought in both Writ Petitions are similar and the grounds raised by the petitioners are common, this Court disposes the above Writ Petitions by way of common order.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No.6664 of 2021 submitted that the vacant landed property bearing survey No.C/2, Block No.34/7A Arani, Vellore Road, Thiruvannamalai District measuring about 13,200 sq.ft belongs to A.J.Raja Rao Nainar and A.J.Sreepathy Rao Nainar. The petitioner purchased the property from the legal heirs of the above said persons and the sale deed was executed in document No.3824 of 2020 on 14.07.2020. The 4th respondent/temple authorities are disturbing the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner. Earlier, the vendor to the petitioner/Jayaraj’s father A.J.Sreepathy Rao Nainar filed a suit in O.S.No.149 of 1990 before the learned District Munsif, Arni for declaration of title and permanent injunction to restrain the temple authorities to interfere with the peaceful possession. The other vendor’s father A.J.Raja Rao Nainar and the 4th respondent/Executive Officer of Arulmighu Viswanathar Temple, Arani are defendants in the suit. The suit was decreed in favour of the petitioner vendor’s predecessor on 26.10.1993 declaring that the plaintiff and the 2nd defendant therein have right and valid title over the property and the 4th respondent/temple authorities have no right over the property. This being so, the 4th respondent/temple authorities prevented peaceful enjoyment and possession of the petitioner of the said suit property.

5. The learned counsel further submitted that in the year 2002, the 4th respondent/temple authorities filed a condonation of delay in filing the set aside petition against the exparte decree passed in O.S.No.149 of 1990 in I.A.No.198 of 2002. The said condone delay petition was dismissed on 10.02.2003 for default by the learned District Munsif, Arni. After lapses of six years, the 4th respondent/temple authorities filed a Civil Revision Petition in C.R.P.No.3652 of 2019 before this Court against the order passed in I.A.No.198 of 2002 in O.S.No.149 of 1990, dated 28.02.2006. This Court, by order, dated 12.11.2019 dismissed the same. He further submitted that since there have been claim and counter claim between the 4th respondent/temple authorities (‘A’ Party) and the petitioner’s vendor Jayaraj (‘B’ Party) and there was likelihood of breach of peace, the 3rd respondent Police registered a case in Crime No.2323 of 2020 under Section 145 Cr.P.C., on 16.07.2020 and sent a letter to the Tahsildar, Arni on 17.07.2020. The Tahsildar, Arani issued notice to both ‘A’ and ‘B’ parties for enquiry. After enquiry, since the Tahsildar, Arni was unable to give a conclusive findin