Madras High Court
F.Antony Muthu vs The Sub Divisional Magistrate Cum on 6 April, 2022
Crl.R.C.(MD) No.226 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 06.04.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.R.C(MD)No.226 of 2022
&
Crl.M.P(MD)No.3087 of 2022
1. F.Antony Muthu
2. D.Micheal
3. G.Dasan
4. T.John Henry
5. R.Selvaraj ... Petitioners/Respondents
A-Party No.1 to 4 & 6
Vs.
1. The Sub Divisional Magistrate cum
Revenue Divisional Officer,
Tiruchendur. ...1st Respondent
2.The State represented by
The Inspector of Police,
Thattarmadam Police Station,
Sattankulam Taluk,
Tuticorin District. ...2nd Respondent/
Complainant
3. Antony Lazer
4. Antony Raj
1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.(MD) No.226 of 2022
5. Chandra Bose
6. Johnson
7. Britto
8. Rathina Pandi
9. Recs
10.Ravistan
11. Charles
12. Jerom ...Respondents 3 to 12/
Respondents B-Party
Prayer : This Criminal Revision has been filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of
Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records and set aside the impugned order
of the first respondent in Na.Ka.A3/5674/2021, dated. 07.02.2022.
For Petitioners : Mr.N.Mohideen Basha
For Respondents : Mrs.M.Aasha
Government Advocate (Criminal Side)
for R.1 & R.2
Mr.Aayiram K.Selvakumar for R.3 to R.12
ORDER
This Criminal Revision Case has been filed to set aside the impugned order
of the first respondent in Na.Ka.A3/5674/2021, dated. 07.02.2022 and thereby,
directing the A -Party, namely, the petitioners herein to remove the stones put up
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.(MD) No.226 of 2022
the property comprised in Survey No.64/1B ad-measuring 0.15.5 ares situated at
Kombadikkottai Village, Sathankulam Taluk in Patta No. 472. The same land
belonged to the representatives/ devotees of the Gurusadi. The patta stands in the
name of Maruthaiammal Athisaya Punniyatha Gurusadi under Patta No.472.
2. While being so, the respondents 3 to 12 try to interfere with the right of
possession of the said land and also claim pathway to have an access to the bus
stop. When the petitioners initiated to put up a compound in the said property
and it was objected by the respondents 3 to 12 herein and also interfered with
their possession and enjoyment of the said land. Therefore, the petitioners lodged
a complaint and on receipt of the same, they were issued with C.S.R.No.645 of
2021 on 11.11.2021. Again another complaint was lodged and they have issued
C.S.R.No.651 of 2021, on the file of the second respondent on the allegation that
in the said land they initiated steps to put up Aasana Mandabam (Committee Hall)
for which stones, sand and other building materials. All the building materials
were damaged by the counter parties. Thereafter, the second respondent referred
issue before the first respondent to initiate proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.(MD) No.226 of 2022
3. A perusal of the impugned order revealed that the respondents / party 3
to 12 have filed a suit in O.S.No.26 of 1991, on the file of the Sub Court,
Thoothukudi for permanent injunction against the petitioners' party. The said suit
was dismissed by the Court below by judgment and decree, dated 19.04.2004 for
the reason that the respondents party failed to prove their case, as if the subject
property is a common property, whereas, the subject property belong to
Maruthaiammal Athisaya Punniyatha Gurusadi, namely, the petitioners' party.
However, the first respondent states that there would be a law and order issue in
respect of the said property between the petitioners party and the respondents
party. Therefore, till a compromise is entered into between the parties, no one is
permitted to put up any construction and also directed to remove all building
materials put up by the petitioners to construct Aasana Mandabam.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the first
respondent has no jurisdiction to go into the title of the property and ordered not
to put up any construction. Even according to the petitioners, the subject property
belongs to the petitioners party. That apart, the petitioners are going to construct
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.(MD) No.226 of 2022
only Aasana Mandapam. It is meant for public purpose not for any individual
purpose. In fact, the petitioners lodged a complaint on the allegation that when
the construction materials were put up in the subject land, the counter parties only
scattered the stones into their places. They prevent the petitioners party not to
allow any vehicle through the said property. He also produced the vediograph
which was taken at the time of scattering the building materials which was put up
by the petitioners party in the said land. Further, the first respondent recorded
that no party shall appear before the first respondent or the legal heirs of the
property or the present petitioners. Therefore, no one is entitled to put up any
construction and it is directs the petitioners party to remove the building materials
which has been put up in the subject property, whereas, the first respondent failed
to consider that from the patta which was issued by the Revenue Department
confirms that it is in the name of Maruthaiammal Athisaya Punniyatha Gurusadi,
which can be represented by the persons who are entitle to. In fact, A-party /
petitioners party are the defendants in the suit filed by the respondents party. The
said suit was dismissed by the trial Court and as such, the first respondent ought
not to have passed the impugned order.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.(MD) No.226 of 2022
5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents also enclosed the
photographs and revealed that all the building materials were scattered all over
the vacant site and no one is able to cross the vacant site. He further submitted
that if at all any title dispute over the said subject property, the petitioners have to
file a suit for declaration and can very well put up construction in the property in
Survey No.64/1B stands in the name of Maruthaiammal Athisaya Punniyatha
Gurusadi and it belonged to the representatives / devotees of Gurusadi.
6. It is an instruction represented by the petitioners. Therefore, the
petitioner initiated to put up Aasana Mandapam (Committee Hall) for the purpose
of providing Annathanam to the general public. In fact, the respondents party
already filed a suit in O.S.No.26 of 1991, on the file of the Sub Court,
Thoothukudi for permanent injunction restraining the petitioners party from
cutting trees and also use the subject land. The said suit was duly contested by
the petitioners party and by judgment and decree, dated 19.02.2004 it was
dismissed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.(MD) No.226 of 2022
“,e;j #o;epiyapy; jhth nrhj;J CUf;F
nghJthd nrhj;J vd;gJ thjpfshy;
ep&gpf;fg;gltpy;iy vd;Wk;> jhth nrhj;J nrhf;fh;
tifawhf;fSf;F ghj;jpag;gl;lJ vd;gij
gpujpthjpfs; Mtzq;fs; kw;Wk; rhl;rpaq;fs; nfhz;L
ep&gpf;fpd;wdh; vd vOtpdhf;fs; 1> 2-f;F
thjpfSf;F vjpuhf tpil fhz;fpNwd;.
Mtzq;fisg; ghh;f;fpd;wNghJ jgrpy; nrhj;J
gpujpthjpfs; kw;Wk; mth;fSila Kd;Ndhh;fspd;
mDgtj;jpy; njhlh;e;J ,Ue;Jte;jpUf;fpwJ vd;gJ
ep&gpf;fg;gLfpd;wJ. NkYk; FUrb xU fpuhkj;jpw;F
ghj;jpag;gl;L ,Ue;jJ vd;gij ep&gpf;f thjpfs;
jug;gpy; rhl;rpaq;fSk; Mtzq;fSk; ,y;iy.
thjpfs; jhth nrhj;jpd; eph;thfj;jpy; jtWfs;
elf;fpwJ vd $wpajd; mbg;gilapy; jhd; ,e;j
tof;F vd;W fl;rp nra;jhYk; thjpfspd; tof;F
Vw;fdNt nrd;id cah;ePjpkd;wj;jpy; nfhz;L
tug;gl;L gpur;rpidfspd; mbg;gilapy; thjpfSf;F
Njitahd ghpfhuk; toq;fg;gl;bUf;fpwJ. ,e;j
#o;epiyapy; 2k; thjp kl;Lk; jdpj;J ];fPk; jahhpf;f
Ntz;Lnkd;W $WtJ ve;jtpjj;jpYk; Vw;Gilajy;y.
10.vOtpdhf;fs; 4 kw;Wk; 5:-
tof;F njhlh;e;j thjpfs; gpujpthjpfis
vjph;j;J cWj;Jf; fl;lisg; ghpfhuk; NfhUfpd;wdh;.
Mdhy; jgrpy; nrhj;J thjpfSf;fhd Ch; kf;fSf;F
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.(MD) No.226 of 2022
ghj;jpag;gl;lJ vd;gij ep&gpf;fhj gl;rj;jpy; jgrpy;
nrhj;ijg; nghWj;J cWj;Jf; fl;lis ghpfhuk;
thjpfs; ngw mUfijAilath;fs; my;y.
vdNt ,e;j tof;fpy; thjpfSf;F ve;j ghpfhuKk;
fpilf;f mUfijapy;iy vd vOtpdhf;fs; 4> 5-f;F
thjpfSf;F vjpuhf tpil fhz;fpNwd;.”
7. In view of the above, the respondents 2 to 12 have no right over the
property and also they failed to prove that the subject property is common
property for all general public. While being so, without considering the same, the
first respondent mechanically without application of mind, passed the impugned
order, thereby, directing both the parties not to put up any construction in the
subject property. That apart, the petitioners already intended to put up Asana
Mandabam meant for public purpose.
8. In view of the above, the impugned order cannot be sustained and
accordingly it is set aside. This Criminal Original Petition is allowed. However,
the respondents 3 to 12 are at liberty to approach the Civil Court for title in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.(MD) No.226 of 2022
respect of the subject property. If they have succeeded in the Civil Suit they can
approach the revenue authorities for appropriate relief, if so advised.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
06.04.2022
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
mga
To:-
1. The Sub Divisional Magistrate cum
Revenue Divisional Officer,
Tiruchendur.
2. The Inspector of Police,
Thattarmadam Police Station,
Sattankulam Taluk,
Tuticorin District.
3. The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.(MD) No.226 of 2022
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN.J
mga
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.226 of 2022
&
Crl.M.P(MD)No.3087 of 2022
06.04.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
