Rajakumari K v. The District Superintendent Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 23.02.2024 CORAM :

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP K.Rajakumari ... Petitioner Vs.

1. The District Superintendent of Police, Office of the District Superintendent of Police, K.Pudur, Madurai, Madurai District.

2. The Inspector of Police, Keelavalavu Police Station, Melur Taluk, Madurai District.

3. The Tahsildar, Melur Taluk Office, Melur, Madurai District.

4. The Sub Regsitrar, Office of the Sub Registrar, Melur, Madurai District.

5. V. Paramasivam ... Respondents 1/5

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the first Respondent to give appropriate police protection, while the third Respondent personnel survey the Petitioner's property in Housing Plot Survey No.602/98 extent of 15.5 cents situated at Keelayur Village, Melur Taluk, Madurai District by considering the Petitioner's representation dated 13.02.2024 sent to the first Respondent based on the tentative Survey Notice dated 09.02.2024 of the third Respondent. For Petitioner : Mr.P.Murughadasan For R-1 to R-4 : Mr.T.Senthil Kumar Additional Public Prosecutor

O R D E R

The Petitioner had filed this Writ Petition seeking a Writ of Mandamus, directing the Respondents 1 and 2 to give appropriate police protection, while the third Respondent personnel survey the Petitioner's property in Housing Plot Survey No.602/98 extent of 15.5 cents situated at Keelayur Village, Melur Taluk, Madurai District by considering the Petitioner's representation dated 13.02.2024. 2/5

2. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that an earlier complaint given by the Petitioner seeking police protection regarding boundary dispute was closed by the second Respondent as a civil dispute.

3. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor on instructions from the Respondents No.1 and 2 submitted that the boundary dispute between the Petitioner and the fifth Respondent for which until otherwise order or decree obtained from the Civil Court, the Respondents No.1 and 2 cannot interfere.

4. On perusal of the affidavit of the Petitioner, it is found that the fifth Respondent had objected to the fencing of the property by the Petitioner herein. If it is a boundary dispute regarding extent of enjoyment by the Petitioner, it is to be decided by the Civil Court. As a Writ Court, this Court cannot give a direction to the Respondents No. 1 and 2.

5. The Petitioner is directed to approach the Civil Court for getting appropriate relief.

3/5

6. With the above said direction, this Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs.

23.02.2024 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No jbr To

1. The District Superintendent of Police, Office of the District Superintendent of Police, K.Pudur, Madurai, Madurai District.

2. The Inspector of Police, Keelavalavu Police Station, Melur Taluk, Madurai District.

3. The Tahsildar, Melur Taluk Office, Melur, Madurai District.

4. The Sub Regsitrar, Office of the Sub Registrar, Melur, Madurai District.

4/5

SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP, J.

jbr 23.02.2024 5/5