Paneerselvam v. The Superintendent Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 17.02.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.DHANABAL W.P(MD)No.4145 of 2025 Paneerselvam ... Petitioner Vs.

1. The Superintendent of Police, Pudukkottai District, Pudukkottai.

2. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Aranthangi, Pudukkottai District.

3. The Inspector of Police, Aranthangi Police Station, Pudukkottai District.

4. The Sub Inspector of Police, Nagudi Police Station, Pudukkottai District.

5. Maheswari ... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents 1 to 4 to allow the petitioner's family to harvest in the property in S.No. 9/9, KudiKaadu Village, Avudaiyarkovil Taluk, Pudukkottai District by considering the petitioner's representation dated 12.02.2025 within a time Page No. 1 of 6

stipulated by this Honble Court.

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Paranjothi M/s.KBS Law Office For Respondents For R1 to R4 : Mr.M.Sakthi Kumar Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

O R D E R

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner to allow the petitioner's family to harvest in the property in S.No. 9/9, KudiKaadu Village, Avudaiyarkovil Taluk, Pudukkottai District by considering the petitioner's representation dated 12.02.2025.

2. According to the petitioner, he cultivated paddy in the field in S.No.9/9 to an extent of 2.5 acres and now, he attempted to harvest the paddy, but the 5th respondent's mother namely Sumathi filed a petition before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Pudukottai to cancel the patta in respect of the said property and the same was dismissed and a civil suit also filed in O.S.No.15 of 2024 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Avudaiyarkovil and the same is pending. While so, the petitioner has approached the 4th respondent in person on 10.02.2025 and requested to Page No. 2 of 6

allow him to harvest the paddy in S.No.9/9 but the 4th respondent orally informed that there is no Court order in respect of the property, therefore, they insisting not to harvest paddy without any Court Order. Since the case is pending before the Civil Court, the 4th respondent is not a competent person to interfere with the civil dispute. Therefore, he sent a representation dated 12.02.2025 to the respondents no. 1 to 4, but the same has not been considered by him.

3. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal) appearing for the respondents no.1 to 4 would submit that already the petitioner got order in respect of some other properties and based on that order, the respondent police have given police protection and thereafter, the petitioner requested to give police protection to harvest the paddy in respect of S.No.9/9, which is not covered under the previous order. The 5th respondent filed a suit in respect of that property in O.S.No.15 of 2024 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Avudaiyarkovil and the same is pending. While so, the respondent police are unable to give police protection and in the mean time, the petitioner has sent the representation dated 12.02.2025. However, they will dispose the representation of the petitioner dated 12.02.2025 within one week.

Page No. 3 of 6

4. Considering the nature of reliefs sought for in this petition, this Court without issuing notice to the 5th respondent inclined to dispose the petition even at the admission stage itself.

5. According to the petitioner, he sent a representation dated 12.02.2025 for giving police protection to the property in S.No.9/9. According to the respondents no. 1 to 4 that already the police protection was given as per the order of the Court, but this property is not covered under the previous order passed by this Court. Now, the petitioner want to give police protection for the property, which is not covered by the order of the Court and the 5th respondent has also claiming right over the property. Therefore, the respondent police cannot give police protection to the petitioner for the disputed property. However, the learned Government Advocate for the respondents no. 1 to 4 has admitted the pending representation of the petitioner dated 12.02.2025. The petitioner has not sought for any police protection, but not to prevent the petitioner from harvesting the paddy in the property, therefore this Court directs the 3rd respondent to dispose the representation of the petitioner dated 12.02.2025 within one week from the date of this Order. Page No. 4 of 6

6. With the above said observation and direction, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs.

17.02.2025 Internet :Yes Index :Yes/No NCC :Yes/No mac To

1. The Superintendent of Police, Pudukkottai District, Pudukkottai.

2. The Deputy Superintendent Of, Police, Aranthangi, Pudukkottai District.

3. The Inspector of Police, Aranthangi Police Station, Pudukkottai District.

4. The Sub Inspector of Police, Nagudi Police Station, Pudukkottai District.

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

Page No. 5 of 6

P.DHANABAL , J.

mac W.P(MD)No.4145 of 2025 17.02.2025 Page No. 6 of 6