IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 17.03.2010 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.SELVAM Crl.O.P.Nos.30170 and 30785 of 2007 & M.P. Nos. 1 + 1 of 2007 Kumarasamy .. Petitioner in both the petitions. Versus The Sub-Divisional Magistrate and Sub-Collector, Gobichettipalayam, Erode (Dt.).. Respondent in both the petitions. Prayer: Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C seeking for a direction to call for the records relating to M.C. No. 51 of 2007 dated 30.09.2007 & 05.10.2007 on the file of the respondent herein and quash the same. For Petitioner : Mr.T. Murugamanickam For Respondent : Mr.J.C. Durairaj Govt. Advocate (Crl.Side) ***** C O M M O N O R D E R As the petitioner and respondent in both the matters are same parties, these petitions may be disposed of by a common order. In Crl.O.P. No. 30170 of 2007, the petitioner seeks a direction to quash proceedings of the respondent in M.C. No. 51 of 2007 dated 30.09.2007. Other Crl.O.P. No.30785 of 2007 seeks to quash proceedings of the respondent in M.C. No. 51 of 2007 dated 05.10.2007. 2. The Order dated 30.09.2007 requires the petitioner to remove the encroachment allegedly put by him by way of constructing a temple in Waste Poramboke land and thereby causing obstruction to persons using the public pathway. Such notice requires the petitioner to show cause as to why the order should not be enforced. 3. Under order dated 05.10.2007, the respondent, has found his earlier order reasonable and appropriate made the same absolute and required the petitioner to obey the same within a period of three days on peril of levy of Penalty on disobedience. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4. I have heard learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) on the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner. 5. The short point taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner had moved a suit in O.S. No. 317 of 2007 before the Principal District Munsif Court, Bhavani wherein he has alleged that at the instance of his political rivals, the Revenue Officials were acting against his interests and sought the relief of permanent injunction against destruction of temple, interference with enjoyment and putting up of any cart path. 6. It is pertinent that the suit is in respect of the very property covered by the order of the respondent. In such suit, the District Collector and the District Revenue Officials have been made party defendants 1 to 3 amongst a total of 10 defendants. The submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that once the Civil Court is seized of the matter, it would be for the Civil Court to decide the rights to the property and under such circumstances, it would be improper for the respondent to deal with the matter. The submission calls for ready acceptance. Therefore, both the petitions are allowed and the proceedings in M.C. No. 51 of 2007 dated 30.09.2007 and 05.10.2007 on the file of the respondent herein are quashed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar ar To 1. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate and Sub-Collector, Gobichettipalayam, Erode (Dt.) 2. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras 1 cc To Mr.T.Murugamanickam, Advocate, SR.17649 Crl.O.P.Nos.30170 and 30785 of 2007 & M.P. Nos. 1 + 1 of 2007 GV(CO) sra 30/03/2010 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/