Madras High Court
Arulraj vs Ragavan on 11 February, 2021
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.73 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 11.02.2021
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE Mrs.JUSTICE R.THARANI
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.73 of 2021
Arulraj ...Petitioner
/Vs./
1.Ragavan
2.Selvi
3.Kanthesan
4.Singara Murugan
5.Jeyakumari
6.State Represented by the Inspector of Police,
Anti Land Grabbing Special Cell Police Station,
Tirunelveli District. ...Respondents
Prayer: Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of Criminal
Procedure Code, to call for records relating to the order passed by the Land
Grabbing Special Court, Tirunelveli, in Cr.M.P.No.60 of 2020, dated
23.11.2020 and set aside the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.T.A.Ebeneser
For Respondent No.6 : Mrs.S.Bharathi
Government Advocate
ORDER
This Criminal Revision Case has been filed by the petitioner to set
aside the order passed by the Land Grabbing Special Court, Tirunelveli, in
Cr.M.P.No.60 of 2020, dated 23.11.2020.
http://www.judis.nic.in
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.73 of 2021
2. On the side of the petitioner, it is stated that the petitioner's mother
got a decree against the mother of the first respondent in a civil suit and she
got possession of the property by way of filing an Execution Petition.
Whereas the mother of the first respondent created fabricated document as if
the mother of the petitioner executed a settlement deed in favour of her, and
on the basis of the fabricated settlement deed dated 08.02.2007, she sold the
property to the second respondent, then, the second respondent sold the
property to the third respondent and then the third respondent sold the
property to the fourth respondent and finally, the fourth respondent sold the
property to the fifth respondent. The petitioner was working in Chennai and
when he returned back to the Village in the year 2017, he came to know that
the property was trespassed by the respondents. Therefore, he lodged a
complaint against the respondents before the police. Since no action was
taken, the petitioner filed a petition before the Special Court for Land
Grabbing, Tirunelveli, under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C., which was dismissed
by the Court. Against the dismissal order, the petitioner preferred this
Criminal Revision Case.
3. The verification of the records reveals that the property involved
was a common property. The property was mentioned as Item No.4 in the
suit.
http://www.judis.nic.in
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.73 of 2021
4. On the side of the petitioner, it is stated that the very same property
was mentioned as Item No.1 in the suit and the Execution Court has also
given the property in possession of the petitioner.
5. It is seen that both Item No.1 and Item No.4 of the suit properties
are the same. The Civil Court has given a verdict that the first property
belongs to the mother of the petitioner and has decided that the fourth
property is a common property. It seems that something is wrong in the
judgment of the Civil Court and also in the description of the property
before the Civil Court, since Item No.4 and Item No.1 of the property
mentioned before the Civil Court are the same.
5. In the above circumstance, the petitioner is directed to approach the
Civil Court to get proper remedy or to file a private complaint, if he is so
advised. This Criminal Revision Case is dismissed.
11.02.2021
Index : Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
sm
http://www.judis.nic.in
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.73 of 2021
Note : In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19
pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for
official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order
that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the
responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.
R.THARANI, J.
sm
To
1.The Land Grabbing Special Court,
Tirunelveli.
2.The Inspector of Police,
Anti Land Grabbing Special Cell Police Station,
Tirunelveli District.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.73 of 2021
http://www.judis.nic.in
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.73 of 2021
11.02.2021
http://www.judis.nic.in
