Madras High CourtWP Crl./543/2025dismissed

P.Jayaraman v. State Rep By The Superintendent Of Police

2025-09-08Honourable Mr Justice N. Sathish Kumar5 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 08-09-2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR

1. P.Jayaraman S/o.Pakkirisamy, No.96, North Street, Periyakttupalayam Vilalge, Keezhiruppu post, Kadampuliyur via, Panruti Taluk Cuddalore District-607 Petitioner(s) Vs

1. State rep by the Superintendent of Police Cuddalore Distrrict 2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police Panruti Taluk, cuddalore District 3.The Inspector of Police Kadampuliyur Police Station, Panruti Taluk, Cuddalore District 4.Selvaraj S/o.Rayar, No.39/2, North Street, Periyakattupalayam Village, Keezhiruppu Post, Kadampuliyur Via, Panruti Taluk, Cuddalore District-607 103 Respondent(s)

PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India to issue Writ of Mandamus direct the respondents 2 and 3 herein to consider the petitioner representation dated 21.06.2025 and consequently direct the respondents 2 and 3 herein to provide the petitioner with necessary police protection as against the 4th respondent herein for the purpose of fencing the petitioner property situated in Survey No.94/10 and 94/12. For Petitioner(s):

S Adarsh S.Kartik For Respondent(s):

Mr.K.M.D.Muhilan Additional Public Prosecutor - R1 to R3 Mr.T.Sezhian For R4

ORDER

This Writ Petition has been filed to direct the second and third respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 21.06.2025 and direct the second and third respondents to provide the petitioner with necessary police protection as against the fourth respondent herein for the purpose of fencing the petitioner property situated in Survey No.94/10 and 94/12.

2. It is the contention of the petitioner that his land has already been surveyed by the revenue officials in the presence of the fourth respondent. However, the fourth respondent is objecting for fencing his land. Therefore, seeks police protection.

3. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 on instructions submitted that there is dispute with regard to measurement and a suit in O.S.No,36 of 2025 is pending between the parties.

4. Whereas, it is the contention of the fourth respondent that he had filed a suit in O.S.No.36 of 2025 in respect of survey No.94/13 and the petitioner's survey number is 94/12 and 94/10.

5. At the outset, this Court is of the view that as survey number is not in dispute and the dispute appears to be with regard to the measurement, and since a suit is pending, there cannot be any direction for police protection. The petitioner is at liberty to file necessary application for appointment of an

Advocate Commissioner before the trial Court in the pending suit and on such application being filed, the trial Court may appoint an Advocate Commissioner to measure both the properties and if the Commissioner finds that there is no dispute with regard to measurements, the petitioner can very well fence his property.

6. With the above direction, this Writ Petition is dismissed. 08-09-2025 Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes vrc To 1.The Superintendent of Police Cuddalore Distrrict 2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police Panruti Taluk, cuddalore District 3.The Inspector of Police Kadampuliyur Police Station, Panruti Taluk, Cuddalore District

N.SATHISH KUMAR J.

vrc 08-09-2025