Madras High CourtWP/36029/2024disposed of

Balraj Mayandidevar v. The Sub Collector,

2024-11-27Honourable Mr Justice P. Velmurugan5 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 27.11.2024

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN Balraj Mayandidevar ... Petitioner Vs.

1.The Sub Collector, Sub-Collector Office, Hosur, Krishnagiri District.

2. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Denkanikottai, Krishnagiri District.

3. The Inspector of Police, Denkanikottai Police Station, Krishnagiri District.

4.Nandu Pachaiyappa 5.Ravi 6.Chennammal 7.Krishnan 8.Ellappa ... Respondents Prayer:

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the second respondent to give police protection to the petitioner and his workmen to fence his land comprised in Survey Nos.344/1 and 345 admeasuring acre 1/5

4.96 cents as per the FMB report issued by surveyor department based on the petitioner's representation dated 21.09.2023. For Petitioner : Mr.A.Leeban For Respondents : Mr.S.Sugendran Additional Public Prosecutor R1 to R3

O R D E R

Mr.S.Sugendran, learned Additional Public Prosecutor accepts notice for respondents 1 to 3. Since no adverse order is being passed as against respondents 4 to 8, notice to those respondents is dispensed with.

2. This Writ Petition has been filed to seeking police protection for fencing the land bearing Survey Nos.344/1 and 345 admeasuring acre 4.96 cents as per the FMB report issued by surveyor department based on the petitioner's representation dated 21.09.2023.

3. According to the petitioner, he is the owner of the agricultural land in question. Based on the survey report of the surveyor, the petitioner has erected fencing stones in the said land. However, the adjacent land occupiers had created disturbance to fence his property. 2/5

Hence, he had given a representation dated 21.09.2023 to the third respondents herein seeking Police protection. Since there was no response from the third respondent, the present petition has been filed.

4. It is seen that the dispute between the parties is civil in nature and hence, this Court cannot go deep into the rights and interest of the parties, as it is for the petitioner to approach the Civil Court for redressal of his grievance.

5. In view of the above, this writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

27.11.2024 Index: Yes/No Speaking Order : Yes/No ms 3/5

To 1.The Sub Collector, Sub-Collector Office, Hosur, Krishnagiri District.

2. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Denkanikottai, Krishnagiri District.

3. The Inspector of Police, Denkanikottai Police Station, Krishnagiri District.

4. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

4/5

P.VELMURUGAN, J ms 27.11.2024 5/5