M.Chithra v. The Superintendent Of Police,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 23.09.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR M.Chithra ... Petitioner versus

1. The Superintendent of Police, Thiruvannamalai District, Thiruvannamalai - 606 604.

2. The Inspector of Police, Vettavalam Police Station, Vettavalam, Thiruvannamalai District - 606 754.

3. M.Ramesh

4. R.Lakshmi

5. R.Vignesh ... Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 and 2 to provide Police protection to the petitioner for cultivating agricultural crops in the petitioner's land situated at S.Nos.11/4 and 12/2, Anukkumalai Village, Kilpennathur Taluk, Thiruvannamalai District to the extent of 3.05 acres. Pg.Nos.1/5

For Petitioner :

Mr.C.Prakasam For Respondents :

Mr.R.Vinoth Raja Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for R1 and R2

O R D E R

This Writ Petition has been filed seeking for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, to direct respondents 1 and 2 to provide Police protection to the petitioner for cultivating agricultural crops in her land situated at S.Nos.11/4 and 12/2, Anukkumalai Village, Kilpennathur Taluk, Thiruvannamalai District to an extent of 3.05 acres.

2. According to the petitioner, she is the absolute owner of the subject property. Originally, the parents of the petitioner purchased the subject properties and during their lifetime they have executed a settlement deed in favour of the petitioner's younger brother Dhanapal, who is unmarried. The said Dhanapal died in a road accident, thereafter, the petitioner's elder brother threatening the petitioner's mother to execute the settlement deeds in his favour. Consequently, petitioner's mother executed a settlement deed in favour of the petitioner, which was refused by the Sub-Registrar for Pg.Nos.2/5

registration. The said refusal check slip was quashed by this Court in W.P.No.22961 of 2024. Thereafter, the petitioner's mother sold the subject properties to the petitioner for a valid sale consideration. As the petitioner being a daughter of the seller is in cultivation of the subject properties, respondents 3 to 5 herein, being the elder brother of the petitioner and his family members causing disturbance for cultivating the said properties. Hence, the petitioner lodged a complaint before the respondents-Police seeking adequate Police protection. Since there was no response forthcoming, the present petition.

3. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record.

4. At the outset, this Court is of the view that the dispute between the petitioner and the respondents 3 to 5 is purely civil in nature. Hence, this Court cannot grant any blanket order to extend police protection. If at all the petitioner is having right over the subject properties and if any disturbance is caused, she can very well file a suit before the concerned civil Court for injunction. Hence, this Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as Pg.Nos.3/5

to costs.

23.09.2025 Index: Yes/No Speaking Order : Yes/No ms To

1. The Superintendent of Police, Thiruvannamalai District, Thiruvannamalai - 606 604.

2. The Inspector of Police, Vettavalam Police Station, Vettavalam, Thiruvannamalai District - 606 754.

3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

Pg.Nos.4/5

N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.

ms 23.09.2025 Pg.Nos.5/5