Judgment 1. The petitioner contends that he got a decree in respect of the property comprised in Survey No.300 to an extent of 2.65 cents in A.S.No.17 of 2011 on 22.08.2011. Thereafter also the petitioner's son Ashok filed O.S.No.260 of 2013 after the petitioner settled the property in favour of his son. The said suit was decreed ex-parte on 22.01.2014. Now, the petitioner come before this Court contending that some unknown persons lodged a complaint before the second respondent regarding this property. Based on which, the respondent police is trying to interfere with the civil dispute. 2. Heard G. Mathavan, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondents and the learned Counsel appearing for the intervenor. 3. It is evident from the records, it is only a poramboke land. Though the petitioner obtained a decree from Civil Court, it is only an ex-parte decree. Without having any proper document, the appellate Court declared the title of the petitioner. Merely because the civil Court has already declared the title in respect of the poromboke land, that will not confer any title. Prima facie, it has been obtained fraudulently suppressing the fact. Moreover, the Government has to be found fault with for not protecting properly the Government properties. 4. Pursuant to the order of this Court dated 12.09.2014, the District Collector, Pudukkottai, District Revenue Officer, Pudukkottai and the Revenue Divisional Officer, Pudukkottai are present before this Court today. They had given the details about the property measuring to an extent of 2.65 cents comprised in S.No.300 of Vellanur Village, Kulathur Taluk, Pudukkottai District which was sought to be grabbed by the third party by filing a suit in O.S.No.260 of 2013. 5. Though the officials were made as parties, an ex-parte decree was passed in the above suit. If the ex-parte decrees are coming to the effect, definitely it would cause heavy loss to the Government. Therefore, appropriate instructions have to be given to the lower officials to safeguard the Government property. It is open to the authorities to follow the Circular No.67 of IGR dated 03.11.2011 (C.No.52338/C1/2011) but, annul the registration if it has been obtained fraudulently. Further, the personal appearance of the officials, is dispensed with. 6. Right from the beginning, the matter have been decided ex-parte. There is a serious negligence on the part of the officials. It is open to the authorities to follow the Circular No.67 of IGR dated 03.11.2011 (C.No.52338/C1/2011) but, annul the registration if it has been obtained fraudulently. Further, the personal appearance of the officials, is dispensed with. 6. Right from the beginning, the matter have been decided ex-parte. There is a serious negligence on the part of the officials. The Collector who appeared before this Court directed to enquire into the matter and take action against the concerned officials. 7. The contention based on the third party, the respondent police trying to interfere with the civil dispute, he cannot be strictly construed as a civil dispute alone that the petitioner is not having any title and managed to get a decree, that will not prevent looking from the enquire the matter. It is open to the petitioner to produce all the documents and put forth his case during enquiry. Therefore, the prayer sought for by the petitioner cannot be granted. 8. Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.