AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
B. Rajendran, J.—The Petitioner would contend that he is the owner of the agricultural lands and the fourth Respondent is his brother. But, the Petitioner is in possession of the property and he has raised Deluxe Ponni paddy crops in his lands and patta stands in his name and he has been paying Kist. As the fourth Respondent is not having good term with the Petitioner, he filed a civil suit. When the fourth Respondent attempted to trespass and harvest the crops produced by him, the Petitioner filed a complaint to the third Respondent to provide police protection at the time of harvest. Further, he filed a petition u/s 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure in Crl.O.P. No. 1623 of 2010 to provide police protection. He was called for enquiry on 25.02.2010 and to produce all the documents. The Petitioner appeared before the third Respondent and produced all the documents, but the third Respondent has not taken any steps to provide police protection. Therefore, the fourth Respondent high-handedly harvested all the crops on 25.02.2010 and due to that the Petitioner sustained loss and thereafter, the Petitioner again made a complaint to the police. When he sought reply under Right to Information Act, he got a report on 17.04.2010. In spite of getting the report from Tahsildar, the third Respondent made a secrete enquiry and came to the conclusion that the fourth Respondent is in possession of the land. Therefore, he acted as a Civil Judge. Hence, the third Respondent is liable to pay compensation for the loss sustained by him due to harvest done by the fourth Respondent.
The third Respondent has filed a detailed counter in which it has been clearly stated that as regards ownership and possession, the matter has to be decided only by the civil forum. As regards raising of the paddy crops, as per the enquiry made by the third Respondent with the local villagers, the fourth Respondent has raised the crops and he is actually in the physical possession of the lands. Then, as per the direction of this Court in Crl.O.P. No. 1623 of 2010, the third Respondent conducted an enquiry and found that the lands are ancestral property and a civil dispute over the partition of the lands in O.S. No. 568 of 2006 is pending before the civil forum and on enquiry with the villagers and the relatives of the Petitioner, it is revealed that the lands in dispute are being held by the fourth Respondent for a quite long period and the legal heirs of the owner, who had died intestate are engaged in partition dispute over the lands and the police was not only investigated or acted in accordance with law but also fulfilled the directions of this Court and even the receiver application filed by the Petitioner in Civil Court had been dismissed and this Respondent has nothing to do with the allegations. Hence, he is not liable to pay any compensation. In any view of the matter, this is purely civil in nature and a civil suit is also pending. Therefore, the writ petition is not maintainable.
The fourth Respondent has filed a separate counter in which he would only contend that the Petitioner has been avaricious and attempting fraudulently to grab the entire property. Hence, the fourth Respondent, his mother and two of his sisters had filed a petition in O.S. No. 568 of 2006, before the Sub Court, Melur, for partition and separate possession thereby dividing the suit properties into seven equal parts and allot four such shares to the Plaintiffs and impleaded the Petitioner as the second Defendant in the suit. The properties are Hindu Joint Family properties and according to them, it is in cultivation, possession and enjoyment of the sisters, mother and the fourth Respondent.
The Petitioner filed a petition in I.A. No. 34 of 2009 for appointment of receiver for harvesting the crops which was also dismissed by the Court on 23.01.2009. As there was no rain, there were only 30 bags of paddy after meeting out the cultivation and harvesting expenses. Subsequently, the Petitioner filed the second receiver petition in I.A. No. 106 of 2009, which is still pending and no order has been passed. Even in Crl.O.P. No. 1623 of 2010 filed u/s 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, the Respondents were not served with notice and this Court had only asked the police to enquire into the matter and after due enquiry, the police found that the cultivation was done by the fourth Respondent and the harvesting was also done by the fourth Respondent. Therefore, the allegation that 232 bags of paddy, each weighing 66 Kgs. per bag is highly impossible, whereas due to paucity of rain only 40 bags were harvested and the alleged demand for money is illegal. In any view of the matter, this is purely civil in nature and a civil suit is also pending. Therefore, the writ petition is not maintainable.
Heard all the parties concerned. By consent of both parties, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal.
The only point of the Petitioner is that pending civil suit filed by him for partition and separate possession, the fourth Respondent was allowed to harvest the crops, which according to the Petitioner he has raised. He would further submit that only with the connivance of the police, in spite of his complaint and the direction in the Crl.O.P. No. 1632 of 2010 to investigate the matter, the Inspector of Police/third Respondent has allowed the fourth Respondent to harvest the crops and therefore, the third Respondent should pay compensation for the alleged loss of crops. The direction of this Court in Crl.M.P. No. 1632 of 2010 reads as follows:
The Petitioner is at liberty to give a detailed representation to the jurisdictional police along with necessary documents and the jurisdictional police on receipt of the same is directed to enquire and dispose of the same in accordance with law.
From the above direction, it is very clear that this Court has directed the Inspector of Police only to enquire into the matter and no positive direction was given to give police protection. Pursuant to the said direction, the Inspector of Police has conducted a enquiry, in fact he has given an opportunity to the Petitioner also and he was also called for enquiry. No doubt the patta and other documents stand in his name. The possession has to be only decided by the Civil Court and the civil suit is pending. In the investigation, the Inspector of Police has only found that the fourth Respondent has raised the crops. In fact, this has been further established by the very fact that the Petitioner himself had filed a petition in I.A. No. 34 of 2009 for seeking appointment of receiver to harvest the crops and the Civil Court after dealing with the same has dismissed the same. The fact that the Petitioner has filed a petition for appointment of a receiver would clearly indicate that all is not well with the Petitioner, if really he has raised the crops he would not have asked for such a relief.
Further, the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner relied upon a decision reported in K. Venkataraman and S. Hemamalini Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Others, wherein, in the case of a Special Public Prosecutor who was involved in high profile cases, his house was attacked in spite of prior intimation and the police did not give sufficient safeguard, for the proposition that when the police did not bother to take adequate steps to prevent a mischief to the properties, compensation could be granted to the parties concerned to the extent of loss of properties. In that process, his house was vandalised and his mother was also attacked. Therefore, the police totally lacked to protect the property in spite of the complaint being sensitive in nature and furthermore, it is also made clear the inaction of the police was evidently apparent on the reading of records. In such circumstances, definitely, the Court can always interfere if there is a violation. But, in the case on hand, it is not the case at all that the police gave any protection to harvest the crops nor the police gave any bandobust to the fourth Respondent. Therefore, they found that only the fourth Respondent has raised the crops and harvested the same. In such view of the matter, the facts of the above case will not be applicable to this case.
In any view of the matter, inasmuch as the civil suit is pending, without expressing any opinion as regards the possession or to the ownership, the whole matter has to be dealt purely civil in nature. When the matter is seized of by the civil court, all it required was a petition for appointment of receiver to harvest the crop and deposit the proceeds only into the Court, which has not been done by him. Whereas, now he has come forward with a writ petition seeking damages from the Inspector of Police. The Inspector of Police has only investigated and found that the crops has been raised only by the fourth Respondent much ado was made by the Petitioner for the use of discreet or secrete enquiry in the report. It is not the case of the Petitioner that he has not been given an opportunity, but he was called for an enquiry on 25.02.2010. Therefore, the allegations made by the Petitioner in the writ petition are not sustainable. In any view of the matter, since this is purely a civil dispute and a civil suit is already pending, the writ petition is not maintainable and nor warranted and the Petitioner has not made out any case seeking for compensation from the third Respondent for any alleged violation. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.