1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 17.03.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.RAJENDRAN Writ Petition (MD).No.3141 of 2011 and M.P.(MD).No.1 of 2011 Karuppiah .. Petitioner Vs. 1.The District Collector, Dindigul District, Dindigul. 2.The Tahsildar, Ottanchatram Taluk, Dindigul District. 3.The Executive Officer, Arulmighu Dhandapani Thirukovil, Palani, Dindigul District. .. Respondents Prayer:- Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of Mandamus forbearing the respondents from interfering with the petitioner's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property in Survey No.583/1 Sri Ramapuram, Kodalvali Village, Dindigul District till the disposal of the A.S.No.192 of 2005 on the file of the Sub-Court, Dindigul. For Petitioner : Mr.V.Sasikumar For R.1&2 : Mr.K.Balasubramanian Addl.Govt.Pleader For R.3 : Mr.D.Rajendran ORDER Peculiarly, this Writ Petition has been filed for a Mandamus forbearing the respondents from interfering with the petitioner's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property in question and the same has to be safe guarded till the disposal of the appeal in A.S.No.192 of 2005 on the file of the Sub-Court, Dindigul. Such frivolous Writ Petitions have to be dismissed in limine with heavy costs. 2. The petitioner has categorically stated that earlier he filed a suit in O.S.No.610 of 2001 for declaration and possession. The said suit was dismissed as early as 26.04.2005. Thereafter, he filed an appeal in A.S.No.192 of 2005 and the appeal is pending. According to the petitioner, the third respondent visited the property in question as the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 owner of the property and attempted to put up a marriage hall. When this was objected and stopped by the petitioner, the third respondent filed a compliant against the petitioner for preventing the Government officials from discharging their official duties. Thereafter, the Inspector of Police concerned has registered a compliant against the petitioner for preventing the Government officials from performing their duties and the said complaint is pending under Crime No.789 of 2010. Subsequently, when the paper publication was made by the fourth respondent for putting up construction in the subject property, the petitioner has rushed to the Court and filed a suit in O.S.No.597 of 2010 seeking for a permanent injunction restraining the third respondent from interfering with the possession of the property and the said suit is pending. While so, suddenly, he has chosen to send a representation to the first respondent on 31.12.2010 stating that the second and third respondents are attempting to interfere with the said property and therefore, he has come forward with the present Writ Petition for a Madamus forbearing the respondents to interfere with the property in question. 3. Having already availed his remedy before the Civil Court, just by making a representation as if the Government officials are attempting to interfere with his peaceful possession and enjoyment, the petitioner has come forward with an innocuous prayer for a Mandamus as stated earlier. Such kind of attempts, like the petitioner, could not be encouraged at all. There is no legal basis for the petitioner to seek any remedy before this Court, when admittedly the petitioner in the affidavit has not even chosen to say in what way the authorities have exceeded the jurisdiction, when especially there are civil suits are pending and his rights has not been established before the Civil forum by the petitioner. Admittedly, the petitioner earlier filed a civil suit and the same was dismissed and thereafter, the appeal preferred by him is pending. Under the peculiar circumstances, the prayer now sought for by the petitioner in the form of representation, that he should not be disturbed till the disposal of the suit, can never be granted at any cost. It goes without saying as he has already approached the Civil Court to work out his remedy, this Writ Petition is not at all maintainable. Further, as per the Division Bench judgment of this Court in M.Ingaci Vs. The Commissioner, Devakottai & Others, reported in 2010-2-L.W.785, such Mandamus cannot be granted. 4.In the result, this Writ Petition is dismissed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(P&A) /True Copy/ Sub-Assistant Registrar https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 To 1.The District Collector, Dindigul District, Dindigul. 2.The Tahsildar, Ottanchatram Taluk, Dindigul District. 3.The Executive Officer, Arulmighu Dhandapani Thirukovil, Palani, Dindigul District. +One cc to Mr.D.Rajendran, Advocate, SR.No.7036 +One cc to The Spl Govt. Pleader, SR.No.7124 ssm rl/6c – 5.4.2011 Order made in W.P.(MD).No.3141 of 2011 17.03.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/