1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 25.02.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.PERIYA KARUPPIAH Crl.O.P.(MD)No.1910 of 2011 V.Thanislas ... Petitioner Vs. 1. The Superintendent of Police,Sivagangai District. 2. The District Collector, Sivagangai District, Sivagangai. 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Devakottai, Sivagangai District. 4. The Thasildar, Thasildar Office, Karaikudi. 5. The Inspector of Police, Amaravathi Pudur Police Station, Amaravathi Pudur, Karaikudi, Sivagangai District. ... Respondents PRAYER: This Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to direct the first respondent directing the third respondent to enquire upon the complaint given by the petitioner dated 22.03.2010 and to submit a report to the second respondent and consequently, directing the second respondent to take appropriate action under Section 133 of Cr.P.C. For Petitioner : M/s. A.Arun Prasad For Respondents : Mrs.S.Devasena, Govt. Advocate (Crl.side) O R D E R This petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking for a direction against the first respondent directing the third respondent to enquire upon the complaint given by the petitioner, dated 22.03.2010 and to submit a report to the second respondent and consequently, directing the second respondent to take appropriate action under Section 133 of Cr.P.C. 2. Heard Mr.A.Arun Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs.S.Devasena, learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) appearing for the State. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit in his argument that the petitioner has taken steps to remove the encroachments in the road in front of the petitioner's house where certain persons referred in the petition have encroached upon the road and made obstructions to the petitioner as well as the other neighbours. He would further submit that the petitioner had given a complaint to all the respondents to take action against the encroachers under Section 133 Cr.P.C. to remove the nuisance, but no action has been taken by the respondents. However, the third respondent had issued a direction to the fourth respondent / the Thasildar on 26.03.2010, to take steps to remove the encroachments, if it is found there and the said direction was not still obeyed by the fourth respondent. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit in his argument that the petitioner would be satisfied, if the fourth respondent is directed by this Court to act in accordance with the direction issued by the third respondent, on 26.03.2010 as produced in page No.11 of the typed set. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) would submit in her argument that no doubt it is the duty of the fourth respondent to obey the direction of the superior officer and the fourth respondent will be directed to obey the order of the third respondent and suitable orders may be passed thereon. 5. I have given anxious consideration to the arguments advanced on either side. 6. The petitioner has sought for removal of encroachments and seeking for a direction to proceed in accordance with the procedure laid down under Section 133 of the Cr.P.C. and the said complaint given by the petitioner on 22.03.2010 against certain persons, who had caused encroachments in the public road in front of the petitioner's house and the third respondent had taken note of and had passed a direction to the fourth respondent to visit the place and remove the encroachment if any. Now the ball is in the court of fourth respondent, who is remaining silent from March 2010 onwards. According to the statement of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the encroachment is still existing. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is inclined to accept the contention of the petitioner and to direct the fourth respondent viz., the Thasildar, Thasildar Office, Karaikudi to obey the order of the third respondent/the Revenue Divisional Officer, Devakottai, Sivagangai District issued by him, on 26.03.2010, as produced in Page-11 of the typed set. Therefore, the petition filed by the petitioner seeking for a direction to proceed under Section 133 of Cr.P.C. is ordered. 8. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the petitioner requests this Court for fixation of time for removal of encroachments. Accordingly, the fourth respondent is directed to comply with the order and to remove the encroachments, if existing in the said road, within a period of two months form the date of receipt of a copy of this order. SD DEPUTY REGISTRAR ( ACCOUNTS ) /TRUE COPY/ ASST REGISTRAR akv To 1. The Superintendent of Police,Sivagangai District. 2. The District Collector,Sivagangai District, Sivagangai. 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Devakottai, Sivagangai District. 4. The Thasildar, Thasildar Office, Karaikudi. 5. The Inspector of Police, Amaravathi Pudur Police Station, Amaravathi Pudur, Karaikudi, Sivagangai District. 6. The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. DM:2011::APRIL:01::: Crl.O.P.(MD)No.1910 of 2011 25.02.2011 2P:7C:: https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/