Madras High CourtCRL OP(MD)/18617/2015disposed of

P.V.Kalyan v. The Superintendent Of Police

2015-10-08Honourable Ms. Justice R.Mala2 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 08.10.2015

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.MALA Crl.O.P.(MD)No.18617of 2015 P.V.Kalyan :Petitioner

Versus

1.The Superintendent of Police, Pudukkottai & District.

2.The Inspector of Police, Thirukokarnam Police Station, Pudukkottai District.

:Respondents PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying to direct the respondent to provide protection to put up compound wall in T.S.No.8644/30 (old T.S.No.8644/13) for an extent of 0.0304.0 sq.m. of punja land (equivalent to 7.50 cents) at Pudukottai.

For Petitioner : Mr.N.Balakrishnan For Respondents: Mr.K.Anbarasan, Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

O R D E R

The petitioner has come forward with this application seeking for a direction, directing the 2nd respondent to provide police protection to put up a compound wall in T.S.No.8644/30 (old T.S.No.8644/13), for an extent of 0.0304.0 sq.m. of punja land (equivalent to 7.50 cents) at Pudukottai.

2. I have heard the submissions made on either side and perused the materials available on record.

3. Mr.N.Balakrishnan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the property in S.No.8644/30 (old T.S.No.8644/13), to an extent of 0.0304.0 sq.m. of Punja land (equivalent to 7.50 cents) in Pudukottai District, belonged to the petitioner, now, which has been kept vacant and as a result of which, some peoples are using the said land, as thoroughfare. Therefore, the petitioner wants to put a compound wall. Continuing his argument, the learned counsel would submit that some third parties are preventing the petitioner from putting up the construction of compound wall and therefore, the petitioner has given a representation to the respondents on 31.08.2015, finding no response, the petitioner has come forward with this application for the relief, as stated supra.

4. Mr.K.Anbarasan, the learned Government Advocate (crl.side) appearing for the respondents would submit already the representation of the petitioner has been considered and during enquiry the respondents came to know that there is no objectors for making construction of a compound wall by the petitioner and hence, it was closed. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

5. Considering the submissions made on either side, I am of the opinion that, if the petitioner is very particular about police protection, for construction of a compound wall in the land in question, he is directed to give a fresh application before the 2nd respondent police and on receipt of such an application, the 2nd respondent is directed to consider the same, by providing police protection, for putting up a compound wall in the land in question, in accordance with law. It is made clear that the petitioner shall bear the expenses for providing police protection.

6. With the above direction, this petition is disposed of. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CO) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To 1.The Superintendent of Police, Pudukkottai & District. 2.The Inspector of Police, Thirukokarnam Police Station, Pudukkottai District.

3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

+1cc to M/s.N.Balakrishnan, Advocate in SR.No.59445 Crl.O.P.(MD)No.18617of 2015 Dated:08.10.2015 mpk PBK/NGM-SS/SAR-I 15/10/2015 ::2P-5C::

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/