Indumathy v. The Superintendent Of Police
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 14.03.2025 CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.DHANABAL Indumathy ... Petitioner Vs
1. The Superintendent of Police, Madurai District, Madurai.
2. The Deputy Superintendent Of Police, Melur Sub Division, Madurai District.
3. The Inspector of Police, Keelavalavu Police Station, Melur Taluk, Madurai District.
4. M.Venkateswari ... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the 3rd respondent to take appropriate action on the petitioner's complaint dated 25.02.2025 and thereby direct him to provide adequate police protection 1/5
to her for fencing her agricultural land to an extent of 52 cents situated in Re Survey No. 646/2A, Patta No. 7093, at Ambalakaranpatti, Melur Taluk, Madurai District and based on the petitioner's representation dated 25.02.2025.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.Sankar For R1 to R3 : Mr.R.M.Anbunithi Additional Public Prosecutor
O R D E R
This Writ Petition has been filed seeking a direction to the third respondent to take appropriate action on the petitioner's complaint dated 25.02.2025 and thereby direct him to provide adequate police protection to her for fencing her agricultural land to an extent of 52 cents situated in Re Survey No. 646/2A, Patta No. 7093, at Ambalakaranpatti, Melur Taluk, Madurai District and based on the petitioner's representation dated 25.02.2025.
2.According to the petitioner, she is the owner of the property in R.S.No.646/2A for an extent of 52 cents. Already she fixed the boundaries and surveyed the land through revenue officials after the order passed by this Court. Now the petitioner wants to fence the land. 2/5
Again the fourth respondent tried to restrict the petitioner from fencing the land. Therefore, the petitioner sent the representation dated 25.02.2025, but the same has not been considered. Hence this petition. 3.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent police would submit that the petitioner's representation is under consideration and the same will be considered and disposed of within a period of one week.
4.Considering the limited scope of the prayer sought for in this petition, this Court, without even issuing notice to the private respondent, is inclined to pass orders.
5.According to the petitioner, she is the owner of the subject property and already she surveyed the land and fixed the boundaries and now, she wants to fence the land based on the survey already conducted. But the fourth respondent is restraining her from fencing the land. Therefore, she approached the third respondent seeking police protection.
3/5
6.The second respondent has admitted the receipt of the petitioner's representation and the same is under consideration. Therefore, the third respondent is directed to dispose of the petitioner's representation, in accordance with law, after affording opportunity to both the parties.
7.With the above direction, this writ petition is disposed of. 14.03.2025 Internet :Yes Index :Yes/No NCC :Yes/No LR To
1. The Superintendent of Police, Madurai District, Madurai.
2. The Deputy Superintendent Of Police, Melur Sub Division, Madurai District.
3. The Inspector of Police, Keelavalavu Police Station, Melur Taluk, Madurai District.
4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,Madurai.
4/5
P.DHANABAL , J.
LR 14.03.2025 5/5