A third party lacks the standing to invoke disciplinary proceedings against government officials under service disputes.

ORDER :

T. Vinod Kumar, J.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 and perused the records.

2. Briefly stated, the case of the petitioner is that she is the absolute owner of the property, being land and house comprised in S.No.176B/9A1(part), (previously Survey No.176B/9A), situated at Chinnaobulapuram Village, Gummidipoondi Taluk, Tiruvallur District; that the petition schedule property formed part of a larger extent of land, originally owned and possessed by her husband; that during the year 1999-2000, a portion of the land was acquired from her husband by the National Highways Authority for widening and laying of four-lane road of NH5; that thereafter her husband executed a sale deed in her favour in respect of the remaining portion of land, under a registered document dated 21.02.2005, which includes the petition schedule property; and that ever since, the execution of the sale deed, she has been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the petition schedule property. However, in the revenue records, the property continues to stand in the name of her husband.

2.1. The petitioner further contended that from and out of the property possessed by her, a portion of the property was again acquired during the year 2009 under the provisions of the National Highways Act, 1955 and thus, she is now in possession and enjoyment of the remaining extent of land admeasuring 545 square feet, which is approximately 11 cents or above.

2.2. It is the further case of the petitioner that certain families residing adjacent to her property on the eastern side for the past 10 to 15 years, taking advantage of the death of her husband in the year 2013, tried and attempted to disturb her peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property and also attempted to trespass into her property for their use as a means of ingress and egress to their houses from the main road, as the passage presently used by them is not convenient in terms of distance; and that as there is continuous and imminent threat to her life and property at the hands of the said strangers, she had filed a civil suit before the competent Court in O.S. No. 321 of 2018 and obtained an order of ad-interim injunction against the said strangers residing on the eastern side of her property; and that the interim order is in force and the suit is pending.

2.3. The petitioner contends that as the matter relating to the dispute stood thus between the petitioner and the strangers, the strangers approached and influenced the official respondents herein namely respondents 3 to 6, to lay a pathway across her property; that pursuant thereto, the respondents 3 to 6 along with some political personalities, trespassed upon her property on 18.01.2018 and threatened her with dire consequences; and that they openly declared they will throw her out from the property by acquiring the entire land for government purpose, without even considering that she is a lone woman, a widow and a helpless person.

2.4. It is the further contention of the petitioner that being faced with the aforesaid threats, she got issued a notice dated 22.01.2019 to respondents 1 to 6, thereby requesting respondents 1 and 2 to take necessary disciplinary action against the respondents 3 to 6 for having indulged in the aforesaid act of threatening her, which are unknown to law and also demoralising her character; and that though respondents 1 to 6 have received the said notice, no reply has been given by them till date.

2.5. The petitioner further contends that despite being