Arabjan v. The Superintendent Of Police
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 01.04.2024 CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. DHANDAPANI Arabjan ... Petitioner Vs.
1.The Superintendent of Police, Krishnagiri, Krishnagiri District.
2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Hosur, Krishnagiri District.
3.The Inspector of Police, Shoolagiri Police Station, Shoolagiri, Krishnagiri District.
4.Annasandiram Primary Agricultural Co-op. Bank, Rep. by its Administrator, Shoolagiri, Krishnagiri District - 635 117.
5.Annasandiram Primary Agricultural Co-op. Bank, Rep. by its Secretary, Shoolagiri, Krishnagiri District - 635 117.
... Respondents Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent Nos.1 to 3 to provide adequate police protection to petitioner's landed property for Page No.1 of 6
putting up compound wall to the landed extent of 6.7 cents (2922 square feets) in S.No.58/2A1A1, Shoolagiri Village, Krishnagiri District in Patta No.792 as per the representation dated 28.01.2024 made by the petitioner herein.
For Petitioner : Mr.T.Sundaravadanam For Respondents : Mr.S.Udaya Kumar Govt. Adv. (Crl.Side) [R1 to R3] *****
ORDER
This Writ Petition has been filed seeking for a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents 1 to 3 to provide adequate police protection to petitioner's landed property for putting up compound wall to the landed extent of 6.7 cents (2922 square feets) in S.No.58/2A1A1, Shoolagiri Village, Krishnagiri District in Patta No.792 as per the representation dated 28.01.2024 made by the petitioner herein.
2. The case of the petitioner is that, he is the owner of the property in S.No.58/2A1A1, Shoolagiri Village, Krishnagiri District to the extent of 6.7 cents (2922 sq.ft.) and patta was issued in favour of the petitioner. Whileso, the fifth respondent who has no right over the property has filed a suit and the same was dismissed for non-prosecution. Page No.2 of 6
Even thereafter, the peaceful enjoyment of the property by the petitioner was prevented by the fifth respondent and the first respondent was preventing the petitioner to build the compound wall in the property. Therefore, the petitioner made a representation seeking police protection before the respondents 1 to 3 dated 28.01.2024, however the same was not considered and no action has been taken. Hence, the petitioner has filed the above writ petition.
3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 and perused the materials placed on record.
4. It is submitted by the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 that, it is purely civil dispute between the parties and the petitioner has to file a civil suit as against the fifth respondent instead of making representation before the law enforcing agency to give police protection. Further, the civil dispute between the parties cannot be interfered with by the law enforcing agency.
Page No.3 of 6
5. It appears to be a civil dispute between the petitioner and the private respondents and in view of the fact that the law enforcing agency cannot interfere with the civil dispute between the petitioner and the private respondents, liberty is granted to the petitioner to file appropriate civil suit before the competent Civil Court as against the private respondents.
6. With the abovesaid liberty, this Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs.
01.04.2024 Index : Yes / No Speaking order / Non-speaking order NCC:Yes/No sp Page No.4 of 6
To 1.The Superintendent of Police, Krishnagiri, Krishnagiri District.
2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Hosur, Krishnagiri District.
3.The Inspector of Police, Shoolagiri Police Station, Shoolagiri, Krishnagiri District.
4.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.
Page No.5 of 6
M.DHANDAPANI, J.
sp 01.04.2024 Page No.6 of 6