The Madras High Court has observed that the use of political power and influence to seize land from vulnerable individuals is nothing short of daylight robbery. The Court emphasized that certain politicians' widespread exploitation of political power, particularly in land-grabbing cases, is a dangerous trend that undermines democracy.

Justice S M Subramaniam observed, “This Court is witnessing large scale exploitation of political power by certain politicians especially in land grabbing matters. This will pave the way for an unhealthy democracy. Using political power and influence to grab land from a powerless common man is nothing short of day-light robbery”.

Advocate S N Narasimhulu appeared for the Petitioner, Advocate V Lalitha appeared for Respondent no 1 (First Respondent), and Government Advocate S Vinoth Kumar appeared for Respondent no 2.

The Petitioners, a 64-year-old woman and her 75-year-old husband, had tried to evict their tenant, the ward secretary of the ruling political party (Respondent no 1), for 13 years. First Respondent had refused to vacate the premises, despite repeated requests from the Petitioners. Petitioners approached the Trial Court seeking eviction orders against his First Respondent. The First Respondent had filed appeals before the Appellate Court, High Court and the Supreme Court, whereby the order of the Trial Court was affirmed. Thereafter, the First Respondent threatened the landlady. A Contempt Petition was filed under section 11 of the Contempt of Court Act (CC Act) against First Respondent for disobeying the order of the Court. The Court had directed the Commissioner of Police to execute the eviction order and submit a report on September 4, 2023.

The Deputy Commissioner of Police has filed a status report stating that the order had been complied with. The First Respondent has already been evicted, and the vacant possession was handed to the landlady by the police authorities, per the status report.

The Court emphasized the significant role politicians played in ordinary citizens' lives. Their words and actions can profoundly impact their followers, party members, and the general public. The Court emphasized the duty of politicians to use their power responsibly and avoid any misuse of their authority for personal gain or illegal purposes. The Court asserted that using political power to secure monetary and personal gains at the expense of the common man is not only a misuse of power but also against constitutional ideals.

The Court observed that even though a common person may appear powerless in society, every citizen in our nation has protected constitutional rights. The Court noted that it would not simply observe when an individual's right to live peacefully under Article 21 is in danger.

The Court noted that the landlady is a senior woman who has endured a long legal battle to evict her tenant, who hadn't paid rent for several years. The Court emphasized that the Senior Citizen Act requires the District Collector to protect the safety and dignity of seniors, with specific duties and responsibilities outlined in the rules. The Court observed that the state and District Collector are obligated to ensure the security and well-being of seniors.

“In the case of the present contempt petitioner, it took 12 years for the senior landlady to vacate the 1st respondent / Tenant through the Court of Law with the assistance of Police. Several years rent has not been paid. The husband of the contempt petitioner is aged about 75 years. Senior citizens at their old age require funds to meet out their medical expenditures and to lead a normal life. The District Collector under the provisions of the Senior Citizen Act is duty bound to protect the security and dignity of the senior citizen living in his/her District. Rules framed under the Senior Citizen Act enumerates the duties and responsibilities of the District Collector to protect the life, security and dignity of the senior citizen”, the Court observed.

Accordingly, the Court listed the matter for September 11.

Cause Title: R. Girija v S. Ramalingam

Click here to read/download Order


Madras High CourtJustice S M Subramaniam

Jayanti Pahwa