Madras High Court
Ramzan Thaikkal Pallivasal vs The Superintendent Of Police on 20 May, 2021
W.P.No 11959 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 20.05.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI
W.P. No. 11959 of 2021
Ramzan Thaikkal Pallivasal
Rep. by its Muthavalli, Mohamed Shahid
S/o. Mohamed Ishak, Ramzan Thaikkal,
Udayargudi, Kattumannarkoil, Cuddalore – 608 301. .. Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Superintendent of Police,
District Police Office,
Cuddalore.
2.The Inspector of Police,
Kattumannarkoil Police Station,
Kattumannarkoil,
Cuddalore District – 608 301.
3.Mahboob Sharif
4.Mohamed Farooq
5.Mathiyazhagan
6.Lenin .. Respondents
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying
to issue a Writ of mandamus directing the first and second respondents to give
police protection to remove the underwood plants and bushes and to put up
fence at the property situated at Udayargudi village, Kattumannarkoil
comprised R.S. 103/1, 2 and 3 admeasuring 9.60 Acre owned by the Ramzan
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
1/6
W.P.No 11959 of 2021
Thaikkal Pallivasal.
For Petitioner : Mr. G.Pugazhenthi
For Respondents 1&2 : Mr. L.Baskaran
O R D E R
The petitioner is the Muthavalli of Ramzan Thaikkal Pallivasal,
Kattumannarkoil, Cuddalore District. The properties situated at Udayarkudi,
Kattumannarkoil Taluk, comprised of R.S.No.103/1, 2 and 3, admeasuring 9.60
Acres, were granted to Ramzansha, to maintain the Thaikka and Chavadi and
the said Ramzansha and his descendants were in possession and enjoyment of
the said properties. The said properties were alienated to and in favour of the
4th respondent and Mumtaj Begum and Rabiyathul Bazari. Thereafter, the then
Muthavalli of Ramzan Thaikka and the Tamil Nadu Wakf Board have jointly
filed suits for recovery of possession against the said persons, as they were the
owners of the properties, before the Principal District Munsif Court,
Chidambaram, in O.S.Nos.710, 711 and 712 of 1986.
2.The trial Court had decreed the suit by a decree and judgment, dated
13.10.1988, aggrieved by which, the defendants in the suits had filed appeals
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No 11959 of 2021
before the Sub-Court, Chidambaram, in A.S.Nos.1, 2 and 3 of 1989 and the
same were dismissed by judgment dated 06.08.1992. As against the above
judgment, the defendants in the suits had filed second appeals in S.A.Nos.1466,
1467 and 1468 of 1992 before this Court and the same were dismissed by this
Court by judgment, dated 30.01.1997, holding that the Ramzan Thaikka
Mosque is the owner of the property and they are entitled to recovery of
possession and other reliefs. On filing execution petitions, possession was
handed over and now, the Pallivasal is in the possession and enjoyment of the
properties.
3.In order to construct buildings for the welfare of the village people,
attempts have been taken by the petitioner to clean the lands of the Pallivasal,
but, the private respondents are preventing them from doing cleaning works
stating that they have right over the property.
4.The petitioner has submitted a representation, dated 07.04.2021, to the
1st and 2nd respondents seeking police protection to complete the cleaning works
in the property, however, it is yet to evoke any kind of response. Due to the
inaction on the part of the respondent police, the present writ petition has been
filed for police protection.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No 11959 of 2021
5.Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner
has succeeded in the civil proceedings before the trial Court and the matter
came up to this Court by way of second appeal and the petitioner has succeeded
in the second appeal and has proved its right over the suit properties. Though
the petitioner has succeeded in the civil proceedings, the third party private
respondents are causing obstructions for removal of bushes and cleaning of the
properties, and hence, the petitioner submitted a representation, dated
07.04.2021, before the 1st and 2nd respondents, but to no avail. Therefore, left
with no other option, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of this
writ petition.
6.Per contra, Mr.L.Baskaran, learned counsel for Government (Crl. Side),
submit that there is a civil dispute between the petitioner and the private
respondents, and it involves adjudication of disputed questions of facts, which
cannot be gone into in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India and it has to be decided only before the civil Court.
7.Heard the learned counsel on either side and also perused the materials
available on record.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No 11959 of 2021
8.A perusal of the affidavit filed in support of this petition disclose that
the petitioner has succeeded in the civil proceedings up to Second Appeal
before this Court. However, it appears that the private respondents are
claiming right over the properties. The suit in which the petitioner has obtained
relief in no way concerns the private third party respondents and that being the
position, the issue relates to title to the property, which involves disputed
question of facts, which cannot be decided by this Court in exercise of its
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and it has to be
decided only before the civil Court. Therefore, the prayer of the petitioner
cannot be granted at this point of time.
9.Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs. However, it is
open to the petitioner to agitate the issue in a manner known to law to establish
his right vis-a-vis the third party respondents.
20.05.2021
Index:Yes/No
Speaking order / Non speaking order
bkn
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No 11959 of 2021
M.DHANDAPANI. J.,
bkn
To
1.The Superintendent of Police,
District Police Office,
Cuddalore.
2.The Inspector of Police,
Kattumannarkoil Police Station,
Kattumannarkoil,
Cuddalore District – 608 301.
W.P. No. 11959 of 2021
20.05.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
