Back
2026 Supreme(Mad) 1169
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
L. VICTORIA GOWRI, J.
V. Malar – Appellant
Versus
The Superintendent of Police, Madurai – Respondent
W.P. Crl. (MD) No. 2270 of 2026
Decided On : 22-04-2026
For the Appellants : M. Vivek Kumar, M. Deepak Kumar
For the Respondents: S. Ravi, C. Geetha, S. Balaji, K. Raghal Priyan, M. Muthumanikkam
No person, including true owners, can dispossess settled possessors without due process; state must protect vulnerable from unlawful eviction.
Headnote:Article 300A of the Constitution protects the right to property, prohibiting deprivation except by authority of law. A vulnerable woman purchased property and lived in peaceful possession until encroachers demolished her dwelling after a police-facilitated survey, rendering her homeless. The court found the demolition unlawful, police inaction a constitutional failure, and emphasized protection of possession without due process. Core issue: Whether demolition by private parties post-survey constitutes unlawful dispossession and state failure to protect residence rights? Ratio: Even true owners cannot use self-help; surveys do not authorize demolition. Police must prevent breaches of peace, upholding Article 21 dignity and shelter rights for vulnerable persons. Writ petition allowed: Directed restoration of structure within three days, Rs.50,000 compensation each from respondents 5-7, police protection, and expeditious investigation completion.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. vulnerable woman's home demolished unlawfully despite complaints. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. police facilitated survey but not demolition; self-help invalid. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 3. article 300a mandates due process; police must protect possession. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25) |
| 4. impleadment and evidence confirm hooliganism by respondents. (Para 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32) |
| 5. order restoration, compensation, investigation; petition allowed. (Para 33) |
ORDER :
Preface:
1. A home is not merely a structure of bricks and mortar; it is the last refuge of dignity, especially for a woman standing alone against the tides of vulnerability. When such a refuge is razed not by the majesty of law but by the might of men emboldened by influence, it is not merely a civil wrong; it is a constitutional wound.
2. The present case compels this Court to confront a distressing narrative of a lone woman, economically fragile yet legally entitled, whose right to residence has been trampled, and whose cries for protection were met with institutional silence. The Constitution does not countenance such abdication. The State, as the sentinel of rights, cannot remain a mute spectator when the weakest citizen is dispossessed without due process.
Factual matrix:
3. The petitioner is a single woman, separated from her husband, eking out her livelihood as an agricultural coolie. She claims to have purchased property in Survey Nos. 349/2B1 and 349/2B2 in Kovilangulam Village, Usilampatti Taluk, Madurai District, and to have been in peaceful possession thereof.
4. According to the petitioner, one Jason Tamil Selvan, owner of the adjacent land, encroached upon her property and, with the aid of associates including Baskarapandiyan and one Billgates, demolished her dwelling, thereby rendering her homeless.
5. It is further contended that the said Jason Tamil Selvan is related to a politically influential person, which emboldened him to act with impunity. Prior to the demolition, the petitioner had lodged a complaint, apprehending interference with her possession. The same was registered as CSR No.25 of 2026 dated 19.01.2026. However, the complaint was closed based on an alleged undertaking before village elders.
6. Thereafter, despite a fresh representation dated 09.04.2026, no effective action was taken by the police authorities, necessitating the filing of the present writ petition.
Prosecution version:
7. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that earlier proceedings were initiated pursuant to the order of this Court in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.2833 of 2026, filed by the said Jason Tamil Selvan seeking police protection for survey of his land.
8. In compliance with the said order, the police facilitated a survey through the Taluk Surveyor. Based on the survey report, Jason Tamil Selvan claimed that the petitioner’s structure stood on his land.
9. It is the stand of the respondents that the police acted only to the extent of facilitating the survey and did not directly participate in the demolition.
Grounds contended by the petitioner:
10. The petitioner contends that:
(i) The demolition of her house was carried out without any authority of law;
(ii) She was not impleaded in the earlier proceedings, thereby depriving her of an opportunity of hearing;
(iii) The police failed in their duty to protect her possession and prevent unlawful dispossession;
(iv) The action of the private parties amounts to criminal trespass, mischief, and unlawful dispossession.
Submissions on either side:
11. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the entire exercise undertaken by Jason Tamil Selvan was a calculated misuse of the process of law. By obtaining a limited order for survey, he orchestrated an unlawful demolition, bypassing the petitioner altogether.
12. It is further submitted that even assuming a boundary dispute, the remedy lies only through due process either by civil adjudication or lawful eviction
