The petitioner has come up with the present writ petition for a mandamus, directing the first respondent to consider her complaint dated 13.02.2017 according to law and take appropriate action against the third respondent through the second respondent. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that she along with her three daughters, is residing in S.Nos.887 and 888, which were classified as Natham lands as per the Government records, for more than 50 years and is regularly paying all the necessary charges, such as, property tax, water tax, electricity consumption charges etc. While so, one Thiyagarajan, who is the hereditary Trustee of Arulmigu Nellukadai Mariamman Temple, had filed a suit in O.S.No.280 of 2003, before the District Munsif Court, Nagapattinam, claiming that the land of the petitioner is belonging to the said temple. The said suit was contested by the petitioner's husband and the same was dismissed. Challenging the same, the said Thiyagarajan filed an appeal and obtained an order of eviction. Aggrieved over the same, the petitioner's husband approached this Court by filing a Second Appeal in S.No.473 of 2007 and obtained an interim order of stay. On 05.09.2011, the petitioner's husband died, due to which, the second appeal stood abated. Taking advantage of the same, the said Thiyagarajan has obtained an order of eviction, against which, the petitioner initiated writ proceedings before this Court. During the pendency of the writ petitions, the third respondent trespassed into the house of the petitioner and took away household articles and educational certificates of her unmarried daughter. Hence, the petitioner lodged a complaint with the second respondent. Finding no response, she made a complaint dated 13.02.2017 to the first respondent, requesting to take action against the third respondent. Since no steps have been taken on the said complaint, she has filed the present writ petition for the above stated relief.
3. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, taking notice for the respondents 1 and 2.
4. The facts made available herein would reveal that the eviction proceedings was initiated by one Thiyagarajan before the District Munsif Court, Nagapattinam in respect of the property occupying by the petitioner herein and the same ended against her. Such being the position, the petitioner has to challenge the eviction order before the appropriate forum. Without doing the same, she has straight away come to this Court with the present petition for a writ of Mandamus, invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which, in my considered view, cannot be maintainable and the same deserves to be dismissed.
5. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.
17.03.2017 Index:Yes/No jv/rk To
1. The Director Office of the Director General of Police, Mylapore, Chennai 600 004.
2. The Inspector of Police Nagapattinam Town Police Station, Nagapattinam.
3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras-104.
R.MAHADEVAN, J jv/rk W.P.No.6456 of 2017 17.03.2017 http://www.judis.nic.in