R.Anitha v. State Rep.By

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 14.02.2022

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA Crl.O.P. No.3104 of 2022 Anitha

...Petitioner

Vs.

1. State rep. By The Superintendent of Police, Thiruvannamalai, 606 601 Thiruvannamalai District.

2. State rep.by The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vandavasi, 604 408 Thiruvannamalai District.

3. State rep. By The Inspector of Police, Desur Police Station, Desur, 604 501, Vadavasi Taluk, Thiruvannamali District.

4. Ramesh ...Respondents PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying to direct the 3rd respondent police to give police protection to the petitioner based on her representation dated 05.01.2022 to carry out agricultural activities in her own lands of an extent of 1.97 acres in Survey Numbers 84 & 85/2A of Singampoondi Village and against the illegal activities of the said Ramesh of Singampoondi Village who is the former owner of the property.

For Petitioner : Mr.V.R.Appaswamee For Respondents: Mr.V.Meganathan Government Advocate (crl.side)

O R D E R

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to direct the third respondent police to give police protection to the petitioner based on her representation dated 05.01.2022 to carry out agricultural activities in her own lands of an extent of 1.97 acres in Survey Numbers 84 and 85/2A of Singampoondi Village and against the illegal activities of the said Ramesh of Singampoondi Village, who is the former owner of the property.

2. The case of the petitioner is that she had purchased the property from one Dhanapal and Shanthi. Further, the claim of the petitioner is that the predecessor in title one Ramesh who had sold the property to said Shanthi, is preventing the petitioner from carrying out the agricultural activities in her own lands of an extent of 1.97 acres in Survey Numbers 84 & 85/2A of Singampoondi Village. The petitioner had given a representation on 05.01.2022 for police protection whereas, the respondents had not taken any action.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is the owner of the property in Survey Nos.84 & 85/2A of Singampoondi Village to an extent of 1.97 acres. The predecessor in title one Ramesh is preventing her from carrying out the agricultural activities and thereby, the petitioner seeks necessary police protection to do agricultural activities in her own lands.

4. Mr.V.Meganathan, learned Government Advocate (crl.side) appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 would submit that it is the claim of said Ramesh that he had not sold any property to the petitioner whereas, the petitioner had fabricated the documents and disturbing his possession.

5.Heard the learned counsels and perused the materials on record.

6. In view of the rival claims by both parties, this Court directs the 3rd respondent to conduct an enquiry based on the representation dated 05.01.2022 and dispose the same within two weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion with regard to the correctness of the claim made in the representation. The respondent shall dispose it in accordance with law.

7.With the above observation, this Criminal Original Petition is closed.

SD/- ASSISTANT REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SUB ASSISTANT REGISTRAR vri/shk To

1. The Superintendent of Police, Thiruvannamalai, 606 601 Thiruvannamalai District.

2. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vandavasi, 604 408 Thiruvannamalai District.

3. The Inspector of Police, Desur Police Station, Desur, 604 501, Vadavasi Taluk, Thiruvannamali District.

4. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

+1cc to Mr.V.R.Appaswamee, Advocate Sr.9155 Crl.O.P. No.3104 of 2022 pch[co] srg 09/03/2022