The City Police said that they had only provided protection to avert a clash and to provide protection to a complainant at Gandhipuram who was facing a problem in accessing her rightful property which she had inherited from her parents, on 11{+t}{+h}Cross Street on January 5.
The police added that the injunction reportedly obtained by A. Pillaiappan (38), owner of an eatery, pertained only in respect of the 300 sq.ft. land of the total area of 9.25 cents that belonged to S. Shama Safi Ali (40).
The police said that the complainant settled in Bengaluru and that she and her husband Shahib Ali came to the place on January 5 after a long time, to renovate the house in the remaining portion of the property which was not under any dispute or litigation.
ADVERTISEMENT
The couple complained of shock when they saw the lock broken and an attempt by the opposite party to encroach upon the entire area.
The couple in their complaint to the Kattoor police said that the eatery owner and his men allegedly attempted to manhandle and attack the couple.
With police preventing a clash, the couple gained access to the rightful property not under any litigation.
ADVERTISEMENT
The police said that tension built as people started gathering on both sides, when there was a commotion between the couple and the eatery owner and his staff.
To take stock of the situation, the top brass of the police visited the spot and that too only after those who created trouble were removed by the police.
Case
registered
A case was registered against the owner of the eatery and his accomplices under various sections of the Indian Penal Code and the Tamil Nadu Public Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act, before they were arrested and sent to remand.
Consequent to the issue, Kattur Police registered a case against Pillaiappan’s lawyer L. Rajendran based on a complaint lodged by Ms. Ali that he tried to grab the land by cheating her using forged documents.
A case was registered in this connection as well.
City Police Commissioner A.K. Viswanathan said that police presence was only to ensure that the commotion never culminated into a clash endangering the life and safety of any of the parties.
In addition after due verification of the claims and counter-claims, the police only enabled the couple to gain access to the property rightfully owned by them. There was no effort to sort out the issue or to enable any of the parties to take possession of the 300 sq ft of land which was under litigation.
When the lawyers and the CPI party functionaries presented a petition, the police have duly promised to look into and consider their demands pertaining to the case against the lawyer, the Commissioner said.
The top brass of the police visited the spot and that too only after those who created trouble were removed by the police