Annasamy v. The State Of Tamilnadu

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 22.08.2025

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI Annasamy ... Petitioner versus

1. The Superintendent of Police, Pudukkottai District, Pudukkottai.

2. The Inspector of Police, Ganesh Nagar Police Station, Ganesh Nagar, Pudukkottai District.

3. Durai

4. Viji ... Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the constitution of India, seeking for the issuance of Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents 1 and 2 to provide adequate police protection to the petitioner to carry out the building debris and to renovate the building situate in T.S.No.2862/2 and T.S.No.2862/3, East 3rd Street, Pudukkottai Town, based on the petitioner's representation dated 04.08.2025 within the time stipulated fixed by this Court.

1/6

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Deenadhayalan For R1 and R2 : Mr.E.Antony Sahaya Prabahar, Additional Public Prosecutor

ORDER

The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking a direction to the respondents 1 and 2 to provide adequate police protection to carry out the building debris and to renovate the building situate in T.S.No.2862/2 and T.S.No.2862/3, East 3rd Street, Pudukkottai Town, by considering his representation dated 04.08.2025.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner's brother Thiyagarajan was having a shop in the Vegetable Market in Pudukkottai District. Since he died on 29.06.2010, his wife Gomathi has maintained the shop. Thereafter, she also died on 22.09.2017. Since the petitioner's brother is not having any issue, the petitioner is the second class legal heir and he is having every right to maintain the shop. Since the building is in dilapidated condition, he wanted to renovate the building and instructed one Chandrasekaran to renovate the building. When they were entering into the building, the respondents 3 and 4, who are the influential 2/6

persons, have prevented them from entering into the building. Therefore, the petitioner has lodged a complaint before the respondent Police and also filed this writ petition seeking police protection. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has also relied on a video clipping and submits that the respondents 3 and 4, in an authoritative manner, prevented the workers from entering into the shop.

3. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that the petitioner has not lodged any complaint. One Chandrakumar has lodged a complaint before the respondent Police and they are conducting the petition enquiry.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner is residing in Bengaluru and taking advantage of that, the respondents 3 and 4 are intimidating the petitioner and preventing him to take possession of the property. The petitioner is also prosecuting the complaint through his power agent.

5. This Court considered the rival submissions made. 3/6

6. Since the petitioner claims that he is the second class legal heir of his deceased brother, who was having a shop in the Vegetable Market in Pudukkottai District, the petitioner shall appear before the respondent Police either directly or through his power agent and produce the revenue records and also the legal heir certificate issued by the revenue officials. The petitioner is also at liberty to produce the video clipping placed before this Court to the respondent Police. The respondent Police is directed to look into the matter, ascertain the same and also ensure that the petitioner is not prevented from entering into his shop.

7. With the above direction, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs.

22.08.2025 ogy NCC : Yes / No.

Index : Yes / No.

Internet : Yes / No.

4/6

To

1. The Superintendent of Police, Pudukkottai District, Pudukkottai.

2. The Inspector of Police, Ganesh Nagar Police Station, Ganesh Nagar, Pudukkottai District.

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

5/6

B.PUGALENDHI, J.

ogy 22.08.2025 6/6