V.Sathyanathan v. The Inspector Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 25.02.2025 CORAM :

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.DHANABAL V.Sathyanathan ... Petitioner Vs The Inspector of Police, Somanathapuram Police Station, Amaravathipudur, Sivagangai District.

... Respondent PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent to offer adequate police protection to the life and limb and also the property situated in Survey No.81/11 at Amaravathi Village, Karaikudi Taluk, Sivagangai District, by considering the petitioner's representation, dated 14.02.2025, submitted in person to the respondent. For Petitioner : Mr.G.Thalaimutharasu For Respondent : Mr.R.M.Anbunithi Additional Public Prosecutor 1/5

O R D E R

This Writ Petition has been filed directing the respondent to offer adequate police protection to the life and limb and also the property situated in Survey No.81/11 at Amaravathi Village, Karaikudi Taluk, Sivagangai District, by considering the petitioner's representation, dated 14.02.2025, submitted in person to the respondent. 2.According to the petitioner, the petitioner is the owner of property in Survey No.81/11 at Amaravathi Village, Karaikudi Taluk, Sivagangai District. He acquired the property through unregistered sale deed. While so, on 14.02.2025 one Arjunan has trespassed into the property and caused threat to the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner has lodged a complaint before the respondent on 14.02.2025 and the same was not considered. Hence, this writ petition has been filed. 3.

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent would submit that the subject property is a Poramboke land and it originally belongs to the Government. The petitioner has purchased the same through unregistered sale deed. There is a dispute between the petitioner and one Arjunan.

sent a complaint before the respondent and the same was enquired and closed, since it is civil in nature.

4.Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record.

5.Since the complaint of the petitioner had been considered and closed by the respondent, it is for the petitioner to take appropriate action against the closure report, if he is aggrieved. However, the petitioner is at liberty to approach the respondent and seek remedy, against the criminal activities if any done by anyone. 6.With the above observations and directions, this writ petition stands disposed of.

25.02.2025 Internet :Yes Index :Yes/No NCC :Yes/No PNM 3/5

To 1.The Inspector of Police, Somanathapuram Police Station, Amaravathipudur, Sivagangai District.

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

4/5

P.DHANABAL , J.

PNM 25.02.2025 5/5