L.Arulkumar v. The State Rep. By The Superintendent Of Police,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 17.04.2025

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN L.Arulkumar ... Petitioner Vs

1. The Superintendent of Police, District Police Office, Cuddalore District.

2. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Panruti Sub-Division, Panruti, Cuddalore District.

3. The Inspector of Police, Kadampuliyur Police Station, Cuddalore District.

4. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Muthandikuppam Police Station, Cuddalore District.

5. Dhanapal ... Respondents Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under 528 of BNSS., 2023, to direct the respondents 1 to 4 provide the necessary Police protection to the petitioner for fencing over his agricultural land pertaining to the property to comprising in Survey Number 127/5 to the extend of 0.59 cents in vide

Patta No.25216 situated at Marungur Village, Panruti Taluk, Cuddalore District on the basis of the petitioner representation dated 21.03.2025. For Petitioner : Mr.S.Siva Kumar For Respondents : Mr.A.Gopinath, Govt. Advocate (Crl. Side) for R1 to R4

ORDER

This petition has been filed to direct the respondents 1 to 4 provide the necessary Police protection to the petitioner for fencing over his agricultural land.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the first to fourth respondents and perused the materials available on record.

3. The petitioner owns the property comprised in S.No.127/5 to an extent of 0.59 cents in Patta No.25216 situated at Marungur Village, Panruti Taluk, Cuddalore District. In order to fence the petitioner's property, now he seeks Police protection, since the fifth respondent is obstructing the petitioner while fencing his land.

4. On a perusal of the records, it is revealed that the fifth respondent already filed a suit in respect of the very same property in O.S.No.26 of 2009, and the same was dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, the appeal suit has been filed, and the same was allowed. Finally, the second appeal was also allowed in favour of the petitioner, and the same was also confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. Therefore, if there is any violation by the fifth respondent, the petitioner ought to have approached the Civil Court for appropriate relief. For fencing the land, Police protection cannot be granted.

5. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. 17.04.2025 Index : Yes/No : Yes/No Speaking/non-speaking order kv

To

1. The Superintendent of Police, District Police Office, Cuddalore District.

2. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Panruti Sub-Division, Panruti, Cuddalore District.

3. The Inspector of Police, Kadampuliyur Police Station, Cuddalore District.

4. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Muthandikuppam Police Station, Cuddalore District.

5. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN. J, kv 17.04.2025