K.Sankar v. The Superintendent Of Police

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 18.03.2025

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN K.Sankar ....

Petitioner Vs

1. The Superintendent of Police, Mayiladuthurai District.

2. The Sub Inspector of Police, Pudupattinam Police Station, Sirgazhi Taluk.

Mayiladuthurai District.

....

Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for the issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to grant protection to the petitioner doing fish farming in Ac.10.18 or Hec.4.12.0 in S.No.175 in Pazhayapalayam Village, SirgazhiTaluk, Mayilduthurai District.

For Petitioner : Mr.D.Baskar For Respondents : Mr.A.Gopinath, Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for R1 and R2

O R D E R

1/5

This petition has been filed seeking a direction to the respondents to grant protection to the petitioner doing fish farming in Ac.10.18 or Hec.4.12.0 in S.No.175 in Pazhayapalayam Village, Sirgazhi Taluk, Mayilduthurai District.

2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner possess land to an extent of Ac.10.18 or Hec.4.12.0 comprised in S.No.175 situated at Pazhayapalayam Village, Sirgazhi Taluk, Mayiladuthurai vide registered sale deed dated 15.05.2006. Ever since the date of purchase, the petitioner is in possession of the property.

3. The further case of the petitioner is that the petitioner had obtained permission from the Coastal Aquaculture Authority, Department of Fisheries, Ministry of Fisheries and Animal Husbandry and Dairying, Government of India. The licence has been given for a period of five years from 09.02.2021, such licence has been given to farm fish over an area of 4 acres with a water spread area ofAc.3.20. Pursuant to the licence, the petitioner has dug the pond and kept everything ready. 2/5

However, there is obstruction from the villagers which has no basis and which is unwarranted. Hence, the petitioner sought for police protection, but still no action was taken.

4. The further case is that the petitioner's licence will expire in another year. He has suffered without any income from the lands for the past four years. Hence, the petitioner has preferred the present petition.

5. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by both counsel, this Court directs the second respondent to conduct an enquiry after issuance of notice to the petitioner and the counter parties and dispose of the same within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order.

7. With the above directions, this Writ petition is disposed of. No Costs.

18.03.2025 3/5

Vv To

1. The Superintendent of Police, Mayiladuthurai District.

2. The Sub Inspector of Police, Pudupattinam Police Station, Sirgazhi Taluk.

Mayiladuthurai District.

3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras, Chennai.

4/5

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.

VV 18.03.2025 5/5