Muthamizhselvan v. Superintendent Of Police
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 21.06.2023
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR Muthamizhselvan ... Petitioner
Versus
1.The Superintendent of Police, Cuddalore, Cuddalore District.
2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Chidambaram, Cuddalore District.
3.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Marudhur Police Station, Marudhur, Cuddalore District.
4.Muthusamy
...Respondents
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to direct the third respondent to give police protection to the petitioner's land in S.No.46/3A1 B to an extent of 0.93 cents to enmark the boundaries and to lay boundary stones and to fence the land based on the petitioner's complaint dated 25.10.2022 and 29.11.2022. Page No.1 of 12
For Petitioner : Mr.K.G.Senthilkumar Additional Public Prosecutor For Respondents 1 to 3 : Mr.A.Gokulakrishnan Additional Public Prosecutor For Respondent-4 : Mr.A.Venkatesan
O R D E R
This petition has been filed seeking police protection to the petitioner's land in S.No.46/3A1 B to an extent of 0.93 cents to earmark the boundaries and to lay boundary stones and to fence the land based on the petitioner's complaint dated 25.10.2022 and 29.11.2022.
2. The contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner had purchased the property at Vatharayanthethu Village, Bhuvanagiri Taluk, Cuddalore District from one Vadivel to an extent of 0.93 cents in S.No.46 by way of two sale deeds, viz., (i) an extent of 0.30 cents registered as Doc.No.735 of 2016 dated 27.05.2016 on the file of S.R.O. Bhuvanagiri and (ii) an extent of 0.63 cents registered as Doc.No.1477 of 2022 dated 22.08.2022 on the file of S.R.O., Bhuvanagiri. The petitioner's vendor obtained this property by way of a registered partition deed dated 13.08.2008 in Doc.No.1238 of 2008. The partition was between the petitioner's vendor and his brother, the Page No.2 of 12
fourth respondent herein. In the partition deed the vendor of the petitioner, namely, Vadivel was allotted 0.95 cents in S.No.46/3A in which 'A' schedule property was allotted to the petitioner's vendor Vadivel and 'B' schedule property was allotted to the fourth respondent herein, which is as follows:
Page No.3 of 12
3. The petitioner's vendor executed the above two sale deeds to an extent of 0.93 cents excluding 0.02 cents, wherein a building was in existence. This being so, the petitioner approached the revenue officials to earmark and fence his property and paid the necessary fees. The Deputy Taluk Surveyor issued notice dated 24.08.2022 to the fourth respondent, who is the adjacent land owner, to be present on 10.09.2022 while surveying the land. The fourth respondent objected and prevented the officials from surveying the land. The fourth respondent's wife Kasthuri threatened the officials that she would set fire to herself, if the survey is done. Thereafter, the petitioner given a complaint to the Tahsildar, Bhuvanagiri on 12.09.2022.
The Village Administrative Officer conducted an inspection along with Revenue Inspector with revenue records and gave a report stating that documents and revenue records confirms the petitioner's ownership and enjoyment, due to the objection raised by the fourth respondent and his wife, the survey could not be done. Thereafter, the Revenue Inspector also given a report dated 16.09.2022. Following the same, the Revenue Tahsildar, Bhuvanagiri had issued summons to the petitioner as well as the fourth respondent. The petitioner appeared along Page No.
with the documents, the fourth respondent had not participated in the enquiry, despite two summons served to him. The revenue officials fearing obstruction and harassment, thereafter had not conducted the survey despite the petitioner made representations to the jurisdictional police as well as to the Deputy Superintendent of Police. Hence, the petitioner has filed the above petition. The petitioner in support of his contention has also filed a typed set and photographs.
4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that due to the objections of the fourth respondent and his wife, the revenue officials in order to avoid any unpleasant events have been restrained from surveying the land.
5. Learned counsel for the fourth respondent submits that the fourth respondent constructed a building and enjoying to an extent of 0.10 cents for which, he has already filed a civil suit in O.S.No.183 of 2022 for bare injunction before the Principal Munsif Court, Chidambaram. Further in the plaint he admits that though in the partition deed, 0.95 cents allotted to his brother Vadivel, 0.10 cents of the land was enjoyed by the fourth Page No.5 of 12
respondent is included, which is now being questioned by the fourth respondent by way of civil suit. He further submitted that he has got no objection for surveying the land, his only objection is that by fencing the surveyed property, his ingress and egress to the house property, which was assigned in his name, would be obstructed.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner objected to the same and submitted that the suit is only for bare injunction for unhindered enjoyment of the property and in the prayer there is no particulars with regard to the area. Further, the petitioner has not made as a party in the suit. Now I.A.No.14 of 2023 has been filed to implead the petitioner. Be that as it may, in the bare injunction suit, no orders have been passed as on date. The petitioner had purchased 0.93 cents and he is in enjoyment of the property. The petitioner had filed an undertaking reiterating that he had purchased only 0.93 cents and for that property alone he is seeking for survey and fencing. Though there might be some deviation, the petitioner is not questioning the same and he has filed this undertaking despite knowing that it might affect his right and the same may be used by the fourth respondent in the civil suit. The petitioner is concerned only with regard to 0.93 cents Page No.6 of 12
and admitting the fourth respondent's enjoyment of 0.02 cents. Their dispute is whether it is 0.02 cents or 0.10 cents, which is claimed by the fourth respondent and it has to be decided during the trial. The petitioner undertakes that if there is any appropriate Civil Court order, he shall abide by the same. As on date he is in enjoyment and possession of 0.93 cents as per sale deed documents. A scanned reproduction of the undertaking reads as follows:
Page No.7 of 12
Page No.8 of 12
Page No.9 of 12
Page No.10 of 12
7. Considering the submissions made and on a perusal of the material it is seen that the petitioner had purchased 0.93 cents from one Vadivel, his vendor, the brother of fourth respondent. The building has been in existence in 0.02 cents, which is in enjoyment of the fourth respondent despite Vadivel has been allotted 0.95 cents. Now the revenue officials have conducted an enquiry and found the contention of the petitioner to be correct. In view of the same, the third respondent is directed to provide police protection to the petitioner for the survey to be conducted by the revenue officials and the petitioner to put up fencing after survey without obstructing ingress and egress of the fourth respondent to the building, which was already in existence.
With the above directions, this Criminal Original Petition is disposed of.
21.06.2023 Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No rsi Page No.11 of 12
M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.
rsi To 1.The Superintendent of Police, Cuddalore, Cuddalore District.
2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Chidambaram, Cuddalore District.
3.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Marudhur Police Station, Marudhur, Cuddalore District.
4.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
21.06.2023 Page No.12 of 12