Madras High Court
Manjula vs The District Superintendent Of ... on 7 June, 2022
W.P.No.12422 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated: 07.06.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR
W.P.No.12422 of 2022
Manjula ...Petitioner
Versus
1.The District Superintendent of Police
(Land Crapping Cell)
Villupuram & District.
2.The Inspector of Police
Mailam Police Station
Villupuram District.
3.Mr.Lakshmi Narayanan
4.Mr.Munusamy ...Respondents
PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India,
praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus to direct the 1st and 2nd respondent to take
appropriate steps against the 3rd and 4th respondents based on the complaint
dated 02.05.2022 and to provide necessary protection to the petitioner's family.
For Petitioner : M/s.P.Vijendran
For Respondents : Mr.A.Gokulakrishnan for R1 & R2
Additional Public Prosecutor
Mr.U.Karunakaran for R3 & R4
Page No:1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.12422 of 2022
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed to direct the 1st and 2nd respondents to
take appropriate steps against the 3rd and 4th respondents based on the complaint
dated 02.05.2022 and to provide necessary protection to the petitioner's family.
2. The main grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner had
purchased the land in the year 2007 and due to the paucity of funds, the
petitioner and her husband could not construct the building immediately.
However, with the help of the 3rd respondent, who also happened to be a
financier, they raised funds by availing loan from LIC Housing Finance
Limited and constructed the property. At the time of availing the financial
assistance, the property was mortgaged with the LIC. Later, they came to know
that the 3rd respondent has executed a sale deed in favour of the 4th respondent
and it was duly registered on 08.04.2021. Thereafter, the petitioner and her
family were thrown out from the property. Hence, the learned counsel for the
petitioner submitted that their dispossession should be restored. In support of
his statements, he also relied upon the decision of this Court reported in CDJ
1990 MHC 297 in the case of Mrs.Meena Nireshwalia Vs State of Tamil
Page No:2/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.12422 of 2022
Nadu and Others and the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in
(2021) 6 Supreme Court Cases 15 in Uttar Pradesh Power Transmission
Corporation Limited and Another Vs. CG Power and Industrial Solutions
Limited and Another.
3. Learned counsel for the respondents 3 and 4 denied the dispossession
of the petitioner illegally and submitted that the petitioner had sold the
property to the 3rd respondent vide registered sale deed dated 30.01.2014 and in
turn, the 3rd respondent sold the property to the 4th respondent vide sale deed
dated 08.04.2021 and now the Patta is also transferred in the name of the 4th
respondent.
4. From the above submissions, this Court can see that the property is
now transferred in the name of 4th respondent which is not in dispute. Whether
there was any actual dispossession or not, is a matter of fact and that cannot be
gone into at this stage while the Court exercising its power under Section 482
of Cr.P.C. It is the allegation of the petitioner that she was dispossessed
forcibly by the 3rd and 4th respondent and the 4th respondent asserts that he is in
Page No:3/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.12422 of 2022
lawful possession after purchasing the property. Whether the 4th respondent is
in lawful possession or not is purely a disputed question of fact which cannot
be decided while the Court exercising its powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
Though much emphasis has been made by the learned counsel for the
petitioner, the Judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner,
are in different context and not applicable to the facts of the present case. If at
all the petitioner was really dispossessed illegally from the property, the proper
course for her is to file a suit for recovery of possession under Section 6 of
Specific Relief Act and not to invoke Section 482 Cr.P.C.
5. This Court has inherent powers to check and balance the powers
conferred under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and not in civil matters. In such view of
the matter, this Court does not find any merit in this case. Accordingly, this
Writ Petition is dismissed.
07.06.2022
Index : Yes / No
Internet: Yes
Speaking/non speaking order
ksa-2/nr
Page No:4/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.12422 of 2022
To
1.The District Superintendent of Police
(Land Crapping Cell)
Villupuram & District.
2.The Inspector of Police
Mailam Police Station
Villupuram District.
3.The Public Prosecutor
High Court, Madras.
Page No:5/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.12422 of 2022
N. SATHISH KUMAR, J
ksa-2/nr
W.P.No.12422 of 2022
07.06.2022
Page No:6/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
