Natarajan v. The Superintendent Of Police
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 13.08.2025 CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR and W.M.P.No.11380 of 2023 Natarajan ... Petitioner Vs.
1.The Superintendent of Police, District Police Office, Ariyalur District, Ariyalur.
2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Jayankondam Division, Jayankondam, Ariyalur Distirct.
3.The Inspector of Police, Jayankondam Police Station, Ariyalur District.
4.G.Pari 5.G.Sekkizhar ... Respondents Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 to 3 to provide adequate police protection to the life and limb of the petitioner for
cultivating the lands situated at Pichanoor village, Udayapalayam Taluk, Ariyalur District, comprised of R.S.Nos.165/6B2, 165/6B4, 165/6C, 165/6D, 165/6E, 167/1Bl, 167/lAl, 167/lCl, totally admeasuring Acre 7.44 cents.
For Petitioner :
Mr.G.Pugazhenthi For R1 to R3 :
Mr.K.M.D.Muhilan, Additional Public Prosecutor For R4 :
Mr.R.Thamaraiselvan For R5 :
No appearance
O R D E R
This writ petition is filed to direct the respondents 1 to 3 to provide adequate police protection to the life and limb of the petitioner for cultivating the lands situated at Pichanoor Village, Udayapalayam Taluk, Ariyalur District, comprised of R.S.Nos.165/6B2, 165/6B4, 165/6C, 165/6D, 165/6E, 167/1Bl, 167/lAl, 167/lCl, totally admeasuring Acre 7.44 cents.
2.It is the case of the petitioner that he is a cultivating tenant under the 4th respondent for the subject lands. He had levelled and developed the
lands and he has been cultivating the lands and paying the rent regularly every year without any default. However, the 4th respondent had directed the petitioner to stop the cultivation activities and hand over possession to him and the same was refused by the petitioner. Therefore, the 4th respondent and few others came to the lands and attempted to forcefully evict the petitioner from the lands without due process of law. Therefore, the petitioner filed a suit in O.S.No.59 of 2017 before the District Munsif Court at Jayankondam, for permanent injunction, and the same is pending. Under these circumstances, the 5th respondent claims to have purchased the lands from the 4th respondent and insists the petitioner to pay rent to him. When the electricity connection was attempted to be disconnected, the petitioner filed another suit in O.S.No.
66 of 2023 as against the private respondents and the TANGEDCO authorities for permanent injunction and the same is pending before the District Munsif Court at Jayankondam. Even thereafter, since the 4th respondent trespassed into the lands and tried to evict the petitioner unlawfully, the petitioner has come forward with this writ petition seeking police protection.
3.Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the entire materials on record.
4.At the outset, this Court is of the view that the allegations made out by the petitioner prima facie appear to be purely civil in nature. The practice of granting blanket orders of police protection, particularly in respect of civil disputes regarding immovable property, would lead to serious consequences. In this aspect, the Hon'ble Apex Court, in the case of PR.Muralidharan and others v. Swami Dharmananda Theertha Padar reported in 2006 (4) SCC 501, has held as follows: "...19.A Writ for ''Police Protection" so-called, has only a limited scope, as when the Court is approached for protection of rights declared by a decree or by an order passed by a civil Court. It cannot be extended to cases where rights have not been determined either finally by the civil Court or, at least at an interlocutory stage in an unambiguous manner, and then too in furtherance of the decree or order."
5.Even as per the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner, suits are pending against the private respondents in O.S.No.59 of 2017 and O.S.No.66 of 2023 on the file of the District Munsif Court at Jayankondam, for permanent injunction. In such view of the matter, there cannot not be any blanket order for police protection and the petitioner can very well work out his remedy in the pending civil suits as per law before the Civil Court. When the civil suits are pending, the petitioner, merely by adding the Police as respondents, cannot virtually maintain a writ petition for injunction, which is not permissible in law. 6.Therefore, I do not find any merit in this writ petition. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
13.08.2025 mkn Internet : Yes Index : Yes / No Speaking order : Yes / No To
1.The Superintendent of Police, District Police Office, Ariyalur District, Ariyalur.
2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Jayankondam Division, Jayankondam, Ariyalur Distirct.
3.The Inspector of Police, Jayankondam Police Station, Ariyalur District.
4.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
N. SATHISH KUMAR, J.
mkn 13.08.2025