Using Political Power To Grab Land From Common Man Is Daylight Robbery: Madras High Court
“Using political power and influence to grab land from a powerless common man is nothing short of day-light robbery" the Madras High Court recently observed.Justice SM Subramaniam added that large-scale exploitation of political power especially in land-grabbing matters would pave the way for unhealthy democracy and that this political power must be used for socially beneficial issues...
“Using political power and influence to grab land from a powerless common man is nothing short of day-light robbery" the Madras High Court recently observed.
Justice SM Subramaniam added that large-scale exploitation of political power especially in land-grabbing matters would pave the way for unhealthy democracy and that this political power must be used for socially beneficial issues instead of personal gains.
A common man may seem powerless in front of the society. But every citizen of our Great Nation and his rights are Constitutionally protected. The Courts will not remain spectators, especially, when his/her right to carry on with a peaceful life under Article 21 is threatened...Political power should be used only for the benefit of the public and not for which is detrimental to the later. When politicians are given such power by the common public, it must be used for socially beneficiary issues and not for creating problems for self gains,” the court said.
The court also noted that politicians play an influential role in the lives of the common man and it was imperative that this power not be misused. The court noted that instead of having a positive and healthy impact on the lives of the people, the politicians these days were using their political connections to create nuisance to the public.
“The power wielding politicians have an inherent responsibility in having positive and healthy impact on the lives of the people and guiding them in the right path, but instead what we are witnessing today in many instances that the politicians are using their political connections and power to threaten and create nuisance to public at large,” the court observed.
The court was hearing a contempt petition filed by a 65 years old Landlady against a DMK Ward Secretary who refused to evict her property despite court orders. The court had earlier directed the Commissioner of Police to depute required number of police officials and evict the politician from the premises within 48 hours.
Following this, the Deputy Commissioner of Police filed a status report informing the court that its order had been complied with and the same was acknowledged by the landlady. She however informed the court that arrears of rent was yet to be settled and that the politician had been committing default of rent for the past more than five years by abusing his political power.
The court noted that lengthy court proceedings in Rent Control matters were being abused by litigants to evade eviction and recovery of arrears. The court added that attempts to take undue advantage by seeking adjournments must also be thwarted.
“The lengthy Court proceedings in Rent Control matters are being abused by certain litigants by protracting the case in order to evade eviction by the landlords and to recover arrears of rent. Even under the new enactment on Rental Law, few tenants are attempting to protract the legal proceedings with the gainful guidance of the legal brains and by taking undue advantage of the frequent adjournments being granted liberally by the Rent Controller / Courts. Such attempts are to be thwarted,” the court observed.
Noting that the landlady and her husband were senior citizens who had been suffering for a long period of time, the court also observed that under the Senior Citizen Act, it was the duty of the State and the District Collector to ensure security and dignity to the senior citizens.
Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr.S.N.Narasimhulu
Counsel for the Respondents: Mr.S.Vinoth Kumar Government Advocate (Criminal Side)
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 259
Case Title: R Girija v S Ramalingam and Another
Case No: Cont P No. 1341 of 2023 in CRP No. 3983 of 2022