Kavin v. The State Rep By Its The Deputy Superintendent Of Police

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 11.09.2025

CORAM:

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR Kavin ... Petitioner Vs.

1.State rep. by The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Andhiyur Sub Division, Erode District.

2.The Inspector of Police, Anthiyur Police Station, Erode District.

3.N.Somasundram ... Respondents Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 & 2 to provide police protection pursuant to the petitioner representation dated 26.07.2025. For Petitioner :

Ms.S.Sengkodi For Respondent :

Mr.R.Vinothraja, GA (Crl. Side) Nos.1 & 2 For Respondent-3 :

Mr.S.Lakshmanasamy

O R D E R

The present Writ Petition has been filed seeking a direction to the respondents 1 & 2 to provide police protection pursuant to the petitioner's representation dated 26.07.2025.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing on behalf of the respondents 1 & 2.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is the absolute owner of the subject property which has been inherited by him from his ancestors and a civil suit in O.S.No.413 of 2016 was pending before the District Munsif Court, Gobichettipalayam for partition. She submitted that the third respondent is interfering and preventing the petitioner to enter his property. She further submitted that on 26.07.2025, the third respondent along with 60 henchmen trespassed into the subject property and put a wire fence and forcibly evicted him, for which, on the same day, the petitioner has lodged a complaint before the second respondent and also approached the first respondent but there was inaction on the part of the respondent police. Furthermore, the petitioner made a representation to the first respondent in this regard but no fruitful response. Hence, the present Writ Petition.

4. The learned Government Advocate submitted that the case pertains to dispute between the petitioner and the third respondent in regard to their

right over the subject property.

5. The learned counsel for the third respondent submitted that the third respondent has purchased the subject property and he is the owner of the property.

6. On a perusal of the case, it is seen that the case pertains to land dispute between the petitioner and the third respondent, which is of civil in nature. If at all, the petitioner is aggrieved, the petitioner can seek his remedy through appropriate Civil forum by establishing his right of title over the subject property.

7. With the above observations, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. 11.09.2025 Index:Yes/No NCC :Yes/No DP

To 1.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Andhiyur Sub Division, Erode District .

2.The Inspector of Police, Anthiyur Police Station, Erode District.

3.The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court.

N.SATHISH KUMAR.J, DP 11.09.2025