Bethel Fellowship Trust, v. The Superintendent Of Police,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 02.06.2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M. NIRMAL KUMAR Bethel Fellowship Trust, Rep. by, Pastor R.Joseph Jayakumar, 4C- BKR Nagar, Sathy Road, Coimbatore - 641 012.
..Petitioner Vs
1. The Superintendent of Police, Office of Superintendent of Police, State Bank Road, Coimbatore - 641 018.
2. The Inspector of Police, Annur Police Station, Annur, Coimbatore District.
3. Gopalakrishnan S/o. Palanigounder, 1/117-1, Nathegoundenpudur, Kunnathur Village, Coimbatore - 641 107.
4. Gokulraj S/o. Gopalakrishnan, 1/117-1, Nathegoundenpudur, Kunnathur Village, Coimbatore - 641 107.
..Respondent(s) Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 and 2 more particularly the second respondent, Inspector of Police, Annur Police Station, Coimbatore District based on the petition dated 21.02.2026 to the 1st respondent
herein to provide necessary police protection for the Construction of building of Church and Amenities (Bethel Fellowship Trust) in Survey No.6/1A1, 8/A2, 9/1B, Kunnathur Village, Annur Taluk, Coimbatore District. For Petitioner(s):
Mr.C.D.Johnson For Respondents-1 & 2:
Mr.Leonard Arul Joseph Selvam, Additional Public Prosecutor For Respondents-3 & 4:
Mr.A.Arshad Khan
ORDER
The petitioner, representative of M/s.Bethel Fellowship Trust, had filed this writ petition seeking a direction to the respondents 1 and 2 to provide police protection for the construction of a Church and other Amenities |(Bethel Fellowship Trust) in Survey Nos.6/1A1, 8/1A2, 9/1B, Kunnathur Village, Annur Taluk, Coimbatore District. The petitioner earlier sent a complaint to the Superintendent of Police for the inaction of the second respondent. Despite the same, the first and second respondents are not considered the petitioner's complaint. Hence, the above writ petition.
2. The contention of the learned counsel for petitioner is that the petitioner's Trust owns around 37 acres of land in Kunnathur Village, Annur Taluk, Coimbatore District in S.Nos. 6/1A1, 8/1A2, 9/1B. Out of the said land, 14.32 acres allotted for construction of a church and other amenities and permissions obtained from the officials of PWD, Coimbatore, DTCP,
Coimbatore and Tamil Nadu Government |Gazatte publication was also obtained for conversion of the land. Further, No Objection Certificate obtained from Fire Service department for construction of church. All legal formalities completed and thereafter, to put up a compound wall to the property and survey was conducted, at that time one Gokulraj and his father Gopalakrishnan and one Gnanaprakash, made objections claiming they have a right over a portion of the property. In fact, it was the said Gopalakrishnan, who sold the property to the Trust. Hence, the petitioner lodged a complaint and CSR No.2003 of 2025 assigned, after enquiry, the police directed the petitioner to approach the concerned Court and undertaking obtained from both parties and the obstructor warned not to enter into the property.
3. The learned counsel for petitioner further submitted that the petitioner filed a civil suit in O.S.No.524 of 2025, which is pending before the III Additional Sub Judge, Coimbatore, during January, 2026, thereafter steps taken to construct the compound wall. At that time, again the persons, who earlier objected, again raised objections. Hence, another complaint lodged and CSR No.10 of 2026 assigned, but the respondent police not taken any action. The said Gopalakrishnan and Gokulraj are claiming that they have some portion of the property inside the trust property and causing objections. Further, the said Gokulraj and Gopalakrishnan entered the trust office and threatened the trust and others in the office, with dire consequences and used abusive words, they
also sent voice records threatening, defaming the advocate community and the legal profession to the Trust advocate, attempting to give religious colour to a private dispute. These voice recording along with transcript submitted before the Civil Court and also a copy submitted to the second respondent. But the respondent police failed to take any action. The inaction of the police emboldened the private respondents 3 and 4 to project a private dispute, as though it is a clash between two religions.
4. The learned counsel in support of his contention filed a typed set containing documents viz., (i) Sale deed Doc.No.5373/2014 executed by respondents 3 and 4 in favour of Trust, (ii) Indian Pentecostal Assemblies Trust settling the property in favour of Bethel Fellowship Trust vide Doc.No.4900/2018 before Annur SRO, (iii) No Objection Certificate given by the Tahsildar, (iv) Opinion obtained from Government Pleader, (v) No Objection Certificate from PWD & TWAD, (vi) Order of DTCP, Coimbatore, (vii) Tamilnadu Government Gazette Publication, (viii) Plaint copy in O.S.No.524 of 2025, (ix) Approval order given by DTCP, Coimbatore, (x) Government approval for construction of Church and other amenities in S.F.No.6/1A, 8/1A & 9/1B and (xi) CSR copies given by the second respondent, he also filed additional typed set containing legal notice issued to Tahsildar, Annur to cancel the Patta Nos.5475 and 5676 issued in the joint name of the legal heirs of Late. Palani Gounder and issuance of patta in the name of
the petitioner for S.No.9/1B dated 29.04.2026. The Tahsildar cancelled the patta, confirming Trust, the absolute owner to the property.
5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 submitted that the respondents 3 and 4 are claiming that they have a portion of the property in S.No.9/1B2 which is their ancestral property derived vide Doc.No.1258/1938, which was not sold to the petitioner. Further, the partnership deed among the seven legal heirs of Palani Gounder was apportioned in S.No.9/1B2 and following the same, Patta Nos.5475 and 5676 issued to the respondents 3 and 4. Based on which, they are making objections, further civil suit is also pending. Hence, awaiting the Court order, the petitioner's complaints were kept pending. Now the patta have been cancelled, hence there is no restriction on providing police protection against any intruders or obstructors including respondents 3 and 4.
6. The learned counsel for the respondents 3 and 4 filed typed set and resorting to Doc.No.1258/1938 submitted that the property in S.No.9/1 and 9/3 purchased in the year 1938 by one Raamana Gounder. Palani Gounder and Suppanna Gounder are the legal heirs of Raamana Gounder. Palani Gounder passed away in the year 1999. There are seven legal heirs of Palani Gounder and the third respondent is one of the legal heirs. The patta was issued in the name of Palani Gounder and Suppanna Gounder in Patta No.5475 and thereafter
Patta No.5676 issued in the name of legal heirs of Palani Gounder. Further civil suit is pending in O.S.No.524 of 2025. He further submitted that in the writ petition, disputed rights of the parties cannot be decided. In support of his contention he relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of P.R.Muralidharan and Others vs. Swami Dharmananda Theertha Padar and Others, reported in (2006) 4 SCC 501.
7. From the submissions made and on perusal of the records, it is seen that the petitioner purchased the property from the respondents 3 and 4 and the property was purchased for building a Church and other amenities. The petitioner purchased 37 acres, out of which, 14.32 acres were set apart for construction of Church and other amenities. Originally the land was classified as agricultural land, later on the application of petitioner, it was classified for institutional purpose. Now for construction of Church and amenities, statutory permission from PWD and TWAD and DTCP approval for construction of Church, all obtained and necessary Government Orders passed in this regard.
Admittedly, the land was sold in the year 2014 and partition deed is of the year 2025 based on this partition of the year, 2025, the respondents 3 and 4 obtained patta. According to the petitioner, the partition deed was questioned and civil suit filed and patta now cancelled.
objections or obstruct construction of the compound wall or any other construction. The issue is with regard to S.No.9/1B comprising of 13 1⁄4 cents. This issue dispelled and cleared by cancellation of patta, which is not disputed by the respondents 3 and 4.
8. It is also to be seen that in the document of the year 1938, there is only a mention about S.Nos.9/1 and 9/3 and the Tahsildar in the No Objection Certificate dated 13.11.2018 recorded that S.Nos.9/1 and 9/3 were consolidated and S.No.9/1B assigned and as per revenue record, in Patta No.3589 an extent of 5.91.0 hectares of land belongs to the petitioner's Trust. The alleged claim of the respondents 3 and 4 is without any meets and bounds. The respondents cannot have a sweeping claim and object to the construction of the Trust. The attempt to give religious flavour is only for private gain, without any substance or force. It is to be seen that the private respondents, as vendor, sold the property to the Trust. From the sale deeds and other documents, it is explicit and clear the purpose and requirement of loan purchased. All statutory authorities including the Collector have given permission for construction of Church and other amenities. Thus, the objection of the private respondents is not sustainable in any manner both legally and factually.
9. In view of the above, this Court directs the respondents 1 and 2 to provide necessary police protection for the construction of building of Church and other amenities by the petitioner-Trust in their property, for which necessary regulatory and statutory permission obtained including Survey Nos.6/1A1, 8/1A2, 9/1B, Kunnathur Village, Annur Taluk, Coimbatore District.
10. With the above observations and directions, the Writ Petition is allowed.
02-06-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order RSI
To
1. The Superintendent of Police, Office of Superintendent of Police, State Bank Road, Coimbatore - 641 018.
2. The Inspector of Police, Annur Police Station, Annur, Coimbatore District.
3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.
RSI 02-06-2026