C.Krishnamoorthy v. The Superintendent Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 18.02.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.DHANABAL C.Krishnamoorthy ... Petitioner Vs.

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

2.The State, Represented by, The Inspector of Police, Aranthangi Police Station, Pudukkottai District.

3.The Surveyor, Aranthangi, Pudukottai.

4.Meiyar ... Respondents Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 and 2 to provide adequate police protection to fix the boundaries of the petitioner's land by surveying the property and by rising fence by considering 1/6

the petitioner's representation, dated 04.02.2025 by fixing a time frame as may be fixed by this Court and pass such further or other orders as this Court. For Petitioner : Mr.B.Micheal Sebastin For R-1 & R-2 : Mr.R.M.Anbunithi Additional Public Prosecutor For R-3 : Mr.M.Senthil Ayyanar Government Advocate

ORDER

The present petition has been filed for issuance of Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 and 2 to provide adequate police protection to fix the boundaries of the petitioner's land by surveying the property and by rising fence by considering the petitioner's representation, dated 04.02.2025.

2. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is the owner of the property in S.No.201/3A at Mukkudi Village, Aranthangi Taluk, Pudukottai District to an extent of 0.68.0 hectares. The petitioner also executed a settlement deed in favour of his daughter on 19.11.2010. While so, the petitioner want to survey the land to erect fencing 2/6

over the property. The fourth respondent is highly influenced person and caused threat to the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner made a representation before the respondents 1 and 2 to provide adequate police protection through representation, dated 04.02.2025 but no any action was taken. Hence, this petition.

3. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the third respondent would submit that the petitioner has not approached the third respondent and not even paid the requisite fee for surveying the lands and without any payment of receipt and without any request, the petitioner filed this petition.

4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 would submit that there is a civil dispute pending between the parties and thereby, the respondents unable to give police protection unless, they have a decree from the competent Court. However, they will consider the representation of the petitioner, dated 04.02.2025 and the same will be disposed of within 15 days.

3/6

5. Since the petitioner's prayer is to consider the representation for police protection, it is for the respondents 1 and 2 to dispose the representation of the petitioner, dated 04.02.2025, within a period of two (2) weeks from the date of this order. As far as the representation of the learned Government Advocate appearing for the third respondent is concerned, it is for the petitioner to ensure that he already paid requisite fee and made request to that effect.

6. With the above said observations and directions, this writ petition stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. 18.02.2025 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes BTR To 1.The Superintendent of Police, Pudukottai, Pudukottai District.

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

4/6

3.The Surveyor, Aranthangi, Pudukottai.

5/6

P.DHANABAL, J.

BTR 18.02.2025 6/6