Syed Ibrahim Ouliyula v. The Superintendent Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 24.03.2025 CORAM :

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.DHANABAL Syed Ibrahim Ouliyula ... Petitioner Vs 1.The Superintendent of Police, Ramanathapuram District, Ramanathapuram.

2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Paramakudi, Ramanathapuram District.

3.The Inspector of Police, Paramakudi Police Station, Paramakudi, Ramanathapuram District.

4.Samayamuthu ... Respondent 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 to 3 to provide adequate police protection for fencing the petitioner's landed properties in Survey Nos.527/3B and 527/3C situated 1/6

at Thelichathanur Village, Paramakudi Taluk, Ramanathapuram District based on the petitioner's representation, dated 04.03.2025, within a time limit stipulated by this Court.

For Petitioner : Mr.B.Arun 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 respondents 1 to 3 to provide adequate police protection for fencing the petitioner's properties in Survey Nos.527/3B and 527/3C situated at Thelichathanur Village, Paramakudi Taluk, Ramanathapuram District based on the petitioner's representation, dated 04.03.2025. 2.According to the petitioner, he is the owner of the property in S.F.No. 527/3B and 527/3C situated at Thelichathanur Village, Paramakudi Taluk, Ramanathapuram District. While so, the fourth respondent without having any rights over the property, creating trouble for the petitioner and in order to grab the property, he attempted to 2/6

encroach the property illegally, thereby, he wanted to survey the land, but already the land was surveyed by the authorities concerned. At that time, he also filed a petition in W.P(MD)No.12631 of 2024 and this Court also ordered for police protection and survey was conducted. Now the petitioner decided to put up fence over the property but the same was restrained by the fourth respondent, thereby, he sent the representation dated 04.03.2025 to the third respondent seeking police protection, but the same has not been considered. Hence this petition. 3.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent police would submit that only recently, the petitioner's representation was received and for which, C.S.R.No.201 of 2025 was assigned. Based on the same, enquiry will be conducted and disposed of within a period of fifteen days.

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 order.

5.According to the petitioner, the fourth respondent caused trouble 3/6

for the construction work carried out by the petitioner and thereby, the petitioner approached the respondent police for police protection through representation, dated 04.03.2025, but the same has not been considered. The third respondent admitted the receipt of the petitioner's representation and it is pending for consideration. 6.In view of the above, the third respondent is directed to consider the petitioner's representation and dispose of the same, within a period of fifteen days from the date of this order, after affording opportunities to both the parties, in accordance with law.

7.With the above direction, this writ petition is disposed of. 24.03.2025 Internet :Yes Index :Yes/No NCC :Yes/No LR 4/6

To 1.The Superintendent of Police, Ramanathapuram District, Ramanathapuram.

2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Paramakudi, Ramanathapuram District.

3.The Inspector of Police, Paramakudi Police Station, Paramakudi, Ramanathapuram District.

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

5/6

P.DHANABAL , J.

LR 24.03.2025 6/6