Muniyammal v. The Superintendent Of Police,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 25.07.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN Muniyammal ... Petitioner Vs.

1.

Superintendent of Police, Collector Office Road, Moovendar Nagar, Villupuram District.

2.

Deputy Superintendent of Police, Tindivanam, Villupuram District.

3.

The State Rep.by Inspector of Police, C-5 Brammadesam Police Station, Marakanam Taluk, Villupuram District - 604 301.

4.

Ettiyan ... Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, praying to issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 17.09.2024 and consequently consider the order of the Additional District Court, Tindivanam in O.S.No.162 of 2019 dated 19.07.2021 and to give permission and protection to the petitioner in which continuous threat giving by Ettiyan while the petitioner doing cultivation. 1/5

For Petitioner : Mr.J.Arun Prasad For Respondents : Dr.C.E.Pratap Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for R1 to R3

O R D E R

The Writ Petition has been filed seeking issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing respondents 1 to 3 to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 17.09.2024 and consequently consider the order of the Additional District Munsif Court, Tindivanam in O.S.No.162 of 2019 dated 19.07.2021 and to give permission and protection to the petitioner for cultivating his land.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for respondents 1 to 3 and perused the materials available on record.

3. Since no adverse order is being passed as against the 4th respondent affecting his interest, notice to the 4th respondent is dispensed with.

4. It is seen from the records that there is a property dispute pending between the petitioner and the fourth respondent herein and the 2/5

petitioner herein had already filed a suit in O.S.No.162 of 2019 before the Additional District Munsif Court, Tindivanam and obtained a decree of permanent injunction in her favour. If at all the fourth respondent violated the directions given in the Civil Court decree, the petitioner has to approach the Civil Court for executing the decree or the competent Civil Court as the case may be. The Writ Court cannot conduct a roving enquiry regarding title, possession and rights of the parties, as the Civil Court had already decided the rights and possession of the parties. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to give any positive direction to the respondents/Police to provide Police protection to the petitioner for cultivating his land.

5. With the above observations, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. However, it is open to the petitioner to work out her remedy before the competent Civil Court in the manner known to law.

25.07.2025 Index: Yes/No Speaking Order : Yes/No ms 3/5

To 1.

The Additional District Munsif, Tindivanam.

2.

The Superintendent of Police, Collector Office Road, Moovendar Nagar, Villupuram District.

3.

The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Tindivanam, Villupuram District.

4.

The Inspector of Police, C-5 Brammadesam Police Station, Marakanam Taluk, Villupuram District - 604 301.

5.

The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

4/5

P.VELMURUGAN, J ms 25.07.2025 5/5