Sundarambal C v. The Thasildar
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 09.04.2025 CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.DHANABAL C.Sundarambal ... Petitioner Vs
1. The Tahsildar, Thirumayam Taluk, Pudukkottai District.
2. The Head Surveyor, Thirumayam Taluk, Pudukkottai District.
3. The Superintendent of Police, Pudukkottai, Pudukkottai District.
4. Govindan ... 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 give police protection to facilitate the 1st and 2nd respondents to survey the land in S. No.177/12 and 177/2 and to fix the four boundaries of Kannanur Village, Thirumayam Taluk, Pudukkottai District, based on the petitioner application dated 11.11.2024. 1/6
For Petitioner : Mr.A.Arun Prasad For Respondents : Mr.R.M.Anbunithi (R3) Additional Public Prosecutor Mr.M.Senthil Ayyanar (R1,2) Government Advocate
O R D E R
This Writ Petition has been filed to direct the 3rd respondent to give police protection to facilitate the 1st and 2nd respondents to survey the land in S. No.177/12 and 177/2 and to fix the four boundaries of Kannanur Village, Thirumayam Taluk, Pudukkottai District, based on the petitioner application dated 11.11.2024.
2.According to the petitioner, she is the owner of the property. While so, she tried to survey the property and paid the requisite fee to the revenue authorities. However, the 4th respondent has restrained the petitioner from surveying the land. Therefore, the petitioner has sent a representation to the 3rd respondent seeking police protection, but the same has not been considered. Hence this petition. 3.The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 would submit that based on the request of the 2/6
petitioner, they have issued notice to the parties. In the meantime, the petitioner has filed a petition seeking police protection, but the same was not considered. However, the date was fixed for conducting survey ie., 25.03.2025 was lapsed. If any fresh representation is given by the petitioner, they will consider the request of the petitioner and take appropriate action in accordance with law.
4.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent police would submit that the representation of the petitioner was received recently and already the date fixed for conducting survey was lapsed. If any fresh date is fixed for conducting survey, they will consider the same and act in accordance with law. 5.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.
6.According to the petitioner, due to the obstruction caused by the 4th respondent, the petitioner has sent a representation seeking police protection to conduct survey and the same was not considered. Though 3/6
the respondents 1 and 2 were accepted the payment made by the petitioner to conduct survey, the date fixed for conducting survey was time lapsed, they could not consider the request of the petitioner. Therefore, it is for the petitioner to approach the 3rd respondent to give a fresh representation, after fixing the date for conducting survey. 7.In view of the above, the petitioner is directed to give a fresh representation to the 3rd respondent, after fixing the date for conducting survey and if any such representation is given, the 3rd respondent is directed to consider the same within a period of 15 days from the date of this order in accordance with law and after affording opportunities to both parties.
8.With the above observations and direction, this Writ Petition is disposed of.
09.04.2025 Internet :Yes Index :Yes/No NCC :Yes/No PNM 4/6
To
1. The Tahsildar, Thirumayam Taluk, Pudukkottai District.
2. The Head Surveyor, Thirumayam Taluk, Pudukkottai District.
3. The Superintendent of Police, Pudukkottai, Pudukkottai District.
4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
5/6
P.DHANABAL , J.
PNM ORDER IN 09.04.2025 6/6