Quick Summary: The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court overturned a decision that stopped both parties from using a disputed piece of land in Virudhunagar District. Justice L. Victoria Gowri ruled in favor of O. Kalimuthu, saying the original order was not within the Sub-Divisional Magistrate's power.
On July 26, 2023, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate in Sivakasi issued an order preventing both parties from entering a disputed land in V. Pudupatti Village, Virudhunagar District. This land was claimed by two groups: one from the Devendrakula Velalar community (led by petitioner O. Kalimuthu) and the other from the Naidu community (respondents 3 to 7). The land was classified as Government Poramboke/Natham, meaning no one had official ownership.
The order was based on a police report under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The Magistrate's decision was to avoid potential law and order issues. However, O. Kalimuthu argued that the order effectively kicked him out of his home without proper legal reasons.
"The RDO went beyond his power by stopping both parties," argued O. Kalimuthu's lawyer.
O. Kalimuthu's lawyer claimed that the order was wrong because it acted like a civil court order, which only a civil court can issue. The land, being a common village site, meant the RDO couldn't decide who owned it or who could use it.
An Advocate Commissioner, M/s. R. Saranya, was appointed to inspect the land. Her report, filed on July 7, 2025, confirmed O. Kalimuthu's possession of the land. The report detailed the presence of household items and cattle, supporting O. Kalimuthu's claim of living there.
Justice L. Victoria Gowri emphasized that Section 145 Cr.P.C. is meant to prevent fights, not to decide who owns the land. The court found that the Magistrate's order didn't recognize who was in possession at the start of the proceedings.
"The preventive power must protect possession, not stop it," noted Justice Gowri.
On November 20, 2025, the court ruled in favor of O. Kalimuthu, canceling the earlier order. The judgment clarified that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate overstepped by issuing a blanket ban on land access.
The court's decision ensures that administrative actions don't overreach into civil matters. It reinforces that Section 145 is not for imposing permanent restrictions but for maintaining peace until civil courts decide on rights.
