← Library
Madras High CourtWP(MD)/1255/2021disposed of

Arayee v. The Tahsildar

2023-07-17Honourable Mr. Justice P.Dhanabal5 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED :17.07.2023

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.DHANABAL W.P(MD) No.1255 of 2021 Arayee ... Petitioner -Vs1. The Tahsildhar Manachanallur Taluk Tiruchirapalli District

2. The Surveyor Officer of the Tiruchirapalli, Mannachanallur, Tiruchirapalli District.

3. The Inspector of Police Samayapuram Police Station, Tiruchirapalli District

4. The Sub Inspector of Police Kollidam Police Station, Tiruchirapalli District

5. V.Sappani

6. Sivakumar ... Respondents PRAYER:- Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the third and fourth respondent to provide adequate police protection while surveying the property Survey No.363/14 to the extent of 0.00.148 hectares situated at Pitchandavar Temple, Manachanallur Taluk, Tiruchirapalli District by the first and second respondent based on my representation dated 02.07.2020.

1/5

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Jegadeesh Pandian For R1 to R4 : Mr. R.M.Anbunithi Additional Public Prosecutor For R5 & R6 : No appearance

ORDER

This Writ Petition has been filed seeking for issuance of Writ of Mandamus to direct the third and fourth respondent to provide adequate police protection while surveying the property Survey No. 363/14 to the extent of 0.00.148 hectares situated at Pitchandavar Temple, Manachanallur Taluk, Tiruchirapalli District by the first and second respondent based on the representation of the petitioner dated 02.07.2020

2. According to the petitioner he sent representation dated 02.07.2020 to the respondents for providing police protection to survey the property in dispute. The respondents 3 and 4 have not considered the representation, hence the petitioner has filed the present petition.

3. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents 1 to 4 would submit that already the representation of the petitioner was considered the same was closed. 2/5

4. In view of the above submission made by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and also considering the fact that already the representation of the petitioner was disposed by the official respondents and the prayer of the petitioner for providing police protection for civil dispute cannot be considered by this Court, this Court is declined to allow this petition.

5. If at all the petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by the official respondents, the petitioner can approach the concerned authorities for appropriate remedy, according to law.

6. With the above observation and direction, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. No costs.

17.07.2023 Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No aav 3/5

To

1. The Tahsildhar Manachanallur Taluk Tiruchirapalli District

2. The Surveyor Officer of the Tiruchirapalli, Mannachanallur, Tiruchirapalli District.

3. The Inspector of Police Samayapuram Police Station, Tiruchirapalli District

4. The Sub Inspector of Police Kollidam Police Station, Tiruchirapalli District

5. The Additional Public Prosecutor Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai 4/5

P.DHANABAL, J.

aav 17.07.2023 5/5