Pritam Shetty v. The Superintendent Of Police
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 01.12.2020
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE J.NISHA BANU Pritam Shetty Petitioner vs.
1.The Superintendent of Police Dindigul District.
2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Kodaikanal Range/Division, Kodaikanal.
3.The Inspector of Police, Kodaikanal Police Station, Kodaikanal, Dindigul District.
Respondents PRAYER: Petition filed under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure, to direct the respondent Nos.1 to 3 to grant police protection for the petitioner and his family members as well as the petitioner's property in Survey No.575 in Vellakavi Village, Kodaikanal Taluk, Dindigul District, within the time stipulated by this Court, on the basis of the petitioner's representation dated 24.09.2020. For Petitioner: Mr.P.M.Vishnuvarthanan For R1 to R3 : Mr.V.Neelakandan, Additional Public Prosecutor
O R D E R
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to direct the respondents 1 to 3 to give police protection for the petitioner and his family members as well as the petitioner's property in Survey No.575 in Vellakavi Village, Kodaikanal Taluk, Dindigul District by considering the petitioner's representation dated 24.09.2020. 2.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is in possession and enjoyment of his property situated in the above address. The neighbours and the land grabbers in the locality of Vattakanal with an intention to grab the petitioner's property, were disturbing the fence of the petitioner's property, thereby, the petitioner was facing continous threat of wild animals. Therefore, he made a representation to the respondent police seeking police protection, but no action has been taken. Hence, this petition.
1/3
3.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would state that the petitioner made allegations against the adjacent owners of his property and the dispute is with regard to the boundaries and therefore, the parties were directed to approach the revenue authorities and to survey their lands and it was advised that if there is any problem in surveying the land, the respondent police will give protection.
4.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Additional Public Prosecutor.
5.The petitioner had not impleaded the persons against whom he is making allegations. The respondents/police had conducted enquiry and finding that it is a dispute between the petitioner and the adjacent land owners regarding the boundaries, had directed to approach the revenue officials to survey their lands and to fix the boundaries, where I do not find any infirmity. The petitioner is directed to approach the appropriate authorities for surveying his property and to fix the boundaries.
6.With the above observation, this Criminal Original Petition is closed.
Sd/- Assistant Registrar (CS-III) // True Copy // / /2020 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) bala/vrn NOTE: In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.
To:- 1.The Superintendent of Police Dindigul District.
2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Kodaikanal Range/Division, Kodaikanal.
3.The Inspector of Police, Kodaikanal Police Station, Kodaikanal, Dindigul District.
2/3
4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
ORDER MADE IN DATED : 01.12.2020 MJ(CO) NR (18/12/2020) 3P : 5C 3/3