R ASAITHAMBI Vs. R NATRAJA COUNDER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner/complainant on the file of Human Rights Judge and I Additional District Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Salem, has preferred the revision aggrieved against the orders dated 27.7.2000 dismissing the complaint.

(2.) THE case in brief is as follows: THE complaint was filed on 4.7.2000 before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Salem under Sec.2(d) of the Protection of Human Rights Act. THE petitioner is the owner of the lands bearing S.No.62/1 and 2 in Deevatipatty Village, Omalur Taluk, Salem. His father had leased out the same to one Natesa Gounder. THEre is a place of worship used by the local Muslims in S.No.61. A-1 offered to part with some area in his portion of the land in favour of the Muslims for their worship during Ramzan and Bakrid festivals. However, there is a regular Mosque elsewhere in the village. THE local Muslims moved the then Thasildar of Omalur for resurvey of the land by way of oral request. THE Thasildar directed A-4 and A-5, who are the FIRKA Surveyor and the VAO to measure the land and to fix boundary stones thereon. THEy while fixing the boundary stones had willfully encroached upon the land of the petitioner and it was done without notice to him. THE petitioner came to know about this in the month of December, 1999. He is a Physician employed in Chennai. Since he is an absentee landlord, his absence in the village had been exploited by these accused. Inspite of telegram and complaint to the higher officials, no action was taken. A-4 and A-5 had planted three boundary stones in the patta land belonging exclusively to the petitioner. He also intimated to A-6 Inspector of Police under a written complaint. He had colluded with other accused and also did not take any action on this complaint. THE petitioner called upon the Thasildar in his office and requested him to resurvey the land in his presence after giving him due notice. He was sent out using abusive and filthy language in the presence of many persons in the office. A-2 had executed his limits by being discourteous to the petitioner. It was also reported to Sub Collector at Mettur and the Collector at Salem. Later, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate without even recording the sworn statement of the petitioner returned the complaint holding that the complaint disclosed violation of property right of the individual. It was re-represented on 6.7.2000 and after recording the sworn statement dismissed the complaint on 26.7.2000 and aggrieved against this, the present revision petition has been filed. THE respondents have been served, but none of them appeared in person or engaged any counsel. THE petitioner appearing in person filed written arguments and also cited about 15 authorities in support of his case.

(3.) THE Court below dismissed the complaint solely on the ground that the dispute is one of civil nature. THE Court can come to the conclusion only after examination of all witnesses cited in the complaint and there is nothing in the order to show as to why other witnesses cited in the complaint were not examined. On a bare reading of the complaint would indicate that the officials have planted three boundary stones without proper authority and without giving notice to the petitioner concerned. But, at the same time the complainant had stated that he went to the office and met the officials and he was not treated courteously and some of the officials also used abusive language in the presence of other persons in the office and thereby they failed to discharge their duty. One other contention raised by the complainant is that he approached the authorities to resurvey the area in his presence and it was also refused. THE petitioner also contacted the Inspector of Police and according to the complainant he failed to register the case. In short, the petitioner in person contended that there is a statutory duty on the part of the Inspector of Police to register a case and investigate the same and he having failed to do the same is bound to be proceeded under the Human Rights Act.