Dhanabhagyam v. The District Collector,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 24-09-2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR Dhanabhagyam Appellant(s) Vs
1. The District Collector, District Collectorate Office, Salem-636 001.
2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Revenue Divisional Office, Attur, Salem-636 102.
3.The Tahsildar, Tahsildar Office, Thalaivasal Taluk, Salem-636 112.
4.The Superintendent of Police, Salem-636 102.
5.The Inspector of Police, Thalaivasal Police Station, Salem-636 112.
6.Kamalakannan
7.Sakthivel 8.Satheesh 9.Periyasamy 10.Murugan 11.Mayavan 12.Ramachandran 13.Sivalingam 14.Bharat 15.Arunachalam 16.Chinnappaiyan 17.Kalaimani 18.Tamilarasu 19.Ilayaraja 20.Arulmani 21.Nagarajan Respondent(s) PRAYER To direct the 4th and 5th respondents to grant police protection to the petitioner and his family to ensure safety and peaceful possession in respect of their residential house situated at Survey No.352/1A (New No.746/12) Door No.1/139 Siruvachur Village, Attur Taluk, Salem District and to take appropriate action against respondents 6 to 21.
For Appellant(s):
Mr.A.Kumar For Respondent:
Mr.R.Vinothraja, Govt. Advocate (Crl. Side), For R1 to R5
ORDER
This petition has been filed seeking police protection to the petitioner and his family members as against the respondents 6 to 21.
2. According to the petitioner, he is in possession of the subject property and the respondents 6 to 21 are trying to interfere with his possession. In this regard, he has given a complaint, which resulted in filing of FIR. Hence, he seeks Police protection.
3. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) submitted that both parties are fighting for a particular piece of land, for which, an FIR has been filed. He further submitted that a case and a counter case has been filed in respect of the said land.
4. At the outset, this Court is of the view, such a protection cannot be granted particularly, when there is rival claim by the other side. The practice of granting blanket police protection particularly, in respect of immovable property
without establishing title leads to serious consequences. In this aspect, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of ''PR.Muralidharan and others Vs.Swami Dharmananda Theertha Padar'' reported in 2006 4 SCC as 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 unambigous manner, and then too in furtherance of the decree or order.''
5. Considering the above submissions, it is clear that the petitioner in fact seeks decree of permanent injunction by way of filing Writ Petition before this Court, which cannot be permitted. Therefore, the petitioner shall file a suit before the Civil Court and establish his possession and get relief as against the respondents 6 to 21. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. 24-09-2025 pvs Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes
To 1.The District Collector, District Collectorate Office, Salem-636 001.
2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Revenue Divisional Office, Attur, Salem-636 102.
3.The Tahsildar, Tahsildar Office, Thalaivasal Taluk, Salem-636 115.
4.The Superintendent of Police, Salem-636 102.
5.The Inspector of Police, Thalaivasal Police Station, Salem-636 112.
N.SATHISH KUMAR J.
pvs 24-09-2025