Judgment :- 1. The petitioner has approached this Court for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus, directing second respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 21.3.2011 in the light of the direction given by the first respondent, and take necessary action within a stipulated time. 2. The petitioner purchased land situated in survey numbers 50/2B, 50/3A, 50/9 in the Moolamangalam Village from one Santhi vide registered sale deed dated 9.9.2008. An attempt was made by the residents of the village to commit trespass in the property which resulted in filing of a suit for injunction, against the trespassers wherein, the application filed by the petitioner seeking interim injunction was allowed. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that aggrieved by the order of injunction, the trespassers colluded with village Nattamaidhars and convened a Kattapanchayat [Kangaroo Court], wherein the petitioner was directed to transfer the property in the name of the trespassers, but she did not agree. On refusal the Kangaroo Court has ordered social boycott of the petitioner, and necessary amenities has been denied to her for sustaining the life, in violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 4. The petitioner accordingly approached the State Human Rights Commission for redressal of her grievance for violation of human rights. 5. The case of the petitioner is that the Human Rights Commission found the allegations of the petitioner to be correct, and recommended the registration of a criminal case against the guilty persons for violating their human rights of the petitioner. 6. The case of the petitioner is that in spite of the direction issued by the first respondent, no action has been taken on the said complaint, by the second respondent. 7. On notice, learned counsel appearing for the State filed a counter, wherein it is the specific stand of the second respondent, that in pursuant to the recommendation of the State Human Rights Commission, a criminal case has been registered against the guilty persons, which is being processed in accordance with law. 8. The other grievance of the petitioner is that she is not allowed to enjoy the property, because of the interference of the residents of the villagers, in denying necessary amenities. 9. 8. The other grievance of the petitioner is that she is not allowed to enjoy the property, because of the interference of the residents of the villagers, in denying necessary amenities. 9. The learned counsel appearing for the State submits, that if appropriate application is made by the petitioner, to the competent authority, it shall be decided in accordance with law and if necessary, directions will also be issued to provide security to her. 10. In view of the stand taken by the State, the writ petition is disposed of, by permitting the petitioner to file requisite application, with the competent authority, for grant of security to enjoy her property. No costs.