S.Krishnan v. The District Superintendent Of Police

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 15.04.2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. NIRMAL KUMAR W.P. Crl. No. 809 of 2026 S. Krishnan ..Petitioner Vs.

1.

The District Superintendent of Police, Villupuram District, Villupuram.

The Sub Inspector of Police, Kanai Police Station, Kanai, Villupuram District.

Anjapuli ..Respondents Prayer:

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issue of a Writ of Mandamus directing respondents 1 and 2 herein to give suitable police protection to the petitioner to fence his land in Survey No. 208/12 comprised in patta No. 446 situated at Konur Village, Villupuram Taluk and district by considering the petitioner's representation dated 19.02.2026.

For Petitioner ::

Ms.V. Suguna For Respondents ::

Mr.Leonard Arul Joseph Selvam Addl. Public Prosecutor for R1 & R2 1\4

O R D E R

The petitioner sent a representation on 19.02.2026 seeking police protection to fence his property. Since no action has been taken, the present writ petition has been filed. The contention of the petitioner is that in the year 1996, the Government had allotted a land and issued house patta to him. Since the petitioner wanted to fence his property, the petitioner paid the required amount to the Government to survey the land and mark the boundaries. Accordingly, his land had been surveyed and boundary stones had been laid. However, the petitioner's neighbour, by name, Anjapuli, the 3rd respondent herein, had removed the boundary stones. Hence, the petitioner gave a complaint to the Chief Minister's Cell. Thereafter, Police officials from Kanai Police Station came and conducted inspection and held talks with both parties.

Then the petitioner was once again asked to apply for survey of the land. Since there was no response, the petitioner approached the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission with a complaint. On receipt of notice from the Consumer Forum, the revenue authorities had taken steps. Hence, the complaint was withdrawn. Thereafter, the Tahsildar, along with surveyor and Village Administrative Officer had measured the entire property on 13.06.

stones in the presence of the Sub Inspector of Police/the 2nd respondent herein. Even thereafter, the 3rd respondent has been threatening the petitioner and not permitting him to fence the property. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for respondents 1 and 2 submitted that the 3rd respondent Anjapuli had been objecting to the laying of boundary stones and that after the General Elections, adequate police protection would be provided to the petitioner for fencing his property.

4.

Considered the submissions and perused the materials on record.

5.

In view of the above, this Court directs the Sub Inspector of Police, Kanai Police Station/2nd respondent herein to provide adequate police protection to the petitioner so as to enable the petitioner to fence his property. If there is any objection by the 3rd respondent or any other person, without any valid reason or Court orders, appropriate action including coercive action to be taken against the obstructors. 6.

The writ petition is disposed of with the above direction..

15.04.2026 nv 3\4

M. NIRMAL KUMAR,J.

nv To 1.

The District Superintendent of Police, Villupuram District, Villupuram.

The Sub Inspector of Police, Kanai Police Station, Kanai, Villupuram District.

The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

15.04.2026 4\4