Madras High Court Bench imposes costs of ₹10 lakh on couple for attempting to grab property of SC person in Tirunelveli

Justice Sathi Kumar Sukumara Kurup of the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court, also refused to quash a charge-sheet filed by the Tirunelveli police against the couple, who are tenants in the property, and who had refused to vacate, but had instead tried to claim the title over the property

The Madurai Bench of Madras High Court has imposed exemplary costs of ₹10 lakh on a married couple for attempting to grab an immovable property owned by a person belonging to a Scheduled Caste. It has also refused to quash a charge-sheet filed against them under the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act of 1989.

Justice Sathi Kumar Sukumara Kurup directed a sessions court in Tirunelveli to collect the amount of costs imposed on the couple, Shanmuganathan and Shanthi, and pay it to the property owner, Perumbadaiyar. He also granted liberty to the sessions court to impose necessary conditions, including cancellation of bail, for the purpose of collecting the costs.

The orders were passed while dismissing a petition moved by the couple and two others to quash the charge-sheet against them. The judge wrote that the petitioners’ counsel P. Krishnasamy consumed several hours presenting his case before the court but did not allow the other side’s counsel, R. Ramachandran, representing the complainant under the SC/ST Act, to argue.

The judge pointed out that the property originally belonged to an individual, Bheeman who had initiated eviction proceedings against the couple, the tenants, and obtained favourable orders. An appeal filed by them was dismissed by a Principal Sub Court and a civil revision petition before the High Court too, ended in dismissal in June 2017.

In the meantime, Mr. Bheeman had sold the property to Mr. Perumbadaiyar and during the dismissal of the revision petition, the counsel for the couple sought a year’s time to vacate the property. The High Court directed them to file an affidavit promising to vacate the property within a year, failing which execution proceedings were ordered to be initiated.

Making things more complicated, in 2018, Shanmuganathan executed a settlement deed claiming title over the property and settled it in favour of his wife. These developments had forced the complainant to invoke the SC/ST Act and the police too, had filed a charge-sheet after completing the investigation.

Admonishing the couple for their conduct, Justice Kumar wrote: “A person, who had purchased the property through a registered sale deed, had been prevented from taking possession of the property by misusing the forum of this court through filing frivolous petitions and screening the orders already passed against the petitioners by this court.”