C.Panduranghan v. The Superintendent Of Police

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 03.09.2025

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR C.Panduranghan ... Petitioner

Versus

1.The Superintendent of Police Krishnagiri District, Krishnagiri 2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police Uttangarai Taluk, Krishnagiri District - 635 307 3.The Inspector of Police Kedakkanoor Village Govindhapuram Post Uttangarai Taluk Krishnagiri District - 635 307 4.Narayanan 5.Suganya 6.Govindhammal 7.Gowrammal 8.Chennammal 9.Sasikala .. Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 1st to 3rd respondents to provide police protection for erecting the boundary fencing of their agricultural land in Survey No.20/1B Punjai land, extent 2.00 acres, situated

at Kedakkanoor Village, Uthangarai Taluk, Krishnagiri District in connection with the complaints dated 08.06.2025, 23.06.2025, 15.07.2025 and representations made on 21.07.2025.

For Petitioner : Mr.P.Yuvaraj For Respondents : Mr.R.Vinothraja for R1 to R3 Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

ORDER

The writ petition has been filed seeking to direct the 1st to 3rd respondents to provide police protection for erecting the boundary fencing of their agricultural land in Survey No.20/1B Punjai land, extent 2.00 acres, situated at Kedakkanoor Village, Uthangarai Taluk, Krishnagiri District in connection with the complaints dated 08.06.2025, 23.06.2025, 15.07.2025 and representations made on 21.07.2025.

2. It is the contention of the petitioner that adjacent land owners and others are disturbing their possession and that the 8th respondent has filed a suit in O.S.No.38 of 2025 on the file of the District Munsif, Uthangarai for declaration of title as against the petitioner and the same is pending. Now, the petitioner seeks police protection for erecting the boundary fences.

3. Heard both sides and perused the materials placed on record. At the

out set, this Court is unable to countenance the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. If at all the petitioner has any dispute with regard to measurement and survey of the land, the proper course is to approach Civil Court by making the respondents as a necessary party and to appoint an Advocate Commissioner, without resorting the same, as a blanket order police protection cannot be granted. In this regard, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment of P.R.Muralidharan and others Vs. Swami Dharmananda Theertha Padar and others reported in (2006) 4 SCC 501 has held that what are all the matters for which police protection can be granted to the cases where rights have not been determined either finally by the civil court or, at least at an interlocutory stage in an unambiguous manner, and then too in furtherance of the decree or order. For better appreciation, the relevant portion of the judgment is extracted below:

"...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 unambiguous manner, and then too in furtherance of the decree or order." N. SATHISH KUMAR, J.

4. In view of the above, this writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. 03.09.2025 dhk Index :Yes/No Internet:Yes/No To 1.The Superintendent of Police Krishnagiri District, Krishnagiri 2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police Uttangarai Taluk, Krishnagiri District - 635 307 3.The Inspector of Police Kedakkanoor Village Govindhapuram Post Uttangarai Taluk Krishnagiri District - 635 307