HC seeks report on advocate taking law into his own hands by demolishing building in Tiruvannamalai

Taking a serious view of an advocate reportedly resorting to demolishing a property after forcibly evicting the petitioner and tenants in Tiruvannamalai, despite a pending suit and police complaints, the Madras high court has directed the Tiruvannamalai Superintendent of Police to appoint an officer, not below the rank of the Deputy Superintendent of Police to inspect the property and file a report.

A division bench comprising Justice N Kirubakaran and Justice R Pongiappan on expressing shock that a person, claiming to be an advocate, who gave a loan to the petitioner's father took the law into his hands and demolished the building owned by latter, said: “A lawyer who is supposed to be a role model went to the level of dispossessing a person of his property and demolish the building without any approved plan.” Based on this, the bench in a bid to ascertain the correct facts directed the investigating officer to find as to whether the property was demolished on 24.05.2020 and 01.06.2020, whether any approved plan has been obtained by the said advocate from the local body to demolish the building and whether the tenants and the petitioner were forcibly evicted.

While seeking the details on the action taken on the petitioner's complaints to the police in this regard on nine different occasions between June 26, 2020, and 12.06.2021, the bench also sought a report on the said advocate’s antecedents and whether he is a regular practitioner or is carrying on any business.

As per the case, the petitioner's father had borrowed money from the advocate and for that, he had given his properties by executing sale agreements and also mortgage deeds. But even though the said money was paid back to the advocate, who is a money-lender, besides being a lawyer, he failed to reconvey the property and also return the documents leading to the filing of a complaint to the Inspector of Police, Land Grabbing, Tiruvannamalai in 2020.

Since no action was taken, the petitioner's father filed Crl. OP. before the Judicial Magistrate seeking direction against the Police officials and the same was closed. However, while a suit initiated by the petitioner's father remained pending, the advocate went to the building owned by the petitioner's father at Kosalai Village, and demolished the building with the help of henchmen and police in three days on forcibly evicting the petitioner and tenants.