J.Vanaroja v. The State Represented By The Inspector Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 13.11.2024

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR J.Vanaroja .. Petitioner Vs The State Rep. by

1. The Inspector of Police Pappanadu Police Station Pappanadu, Thanjavur District 2.Ravichandran 3.Banumathi .. Respondents PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the first respondent to provide adequate police protection during fence my land in Survey No.111/5A2 situated at Vellur revenue village, Orathanadu Taluk, Thanjavur District based on my representation dated 10.10.2024.

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Arunraj For Respondent : Mr.A.Thiruvadikumar No.1 Additional Public Prosecutor 1/5

ORDER

This Writ Petition has been filed to direct the first respondent to provide adequate police protection for fencing the land in Survey No. 111/5A2 situated at Vellur revenue village, Orathanadu Taluk, Thanjavur District based on the representation dated 10.10.2024.

2. The contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner the petitioner was in possession of the property in S.No.111/5A2 for an extent of 1 cent situated at Vellur revenue village, Orthanadu Taluk, Thanjavur District and on 21.07.2004 the petitioner executed sale deed in favour of her husband vide document No.1819 of 2004. The revenue records, patta No.995 and tax receipts of the property stands in the name of the petitioner. Thereafter on 24.05.2024 the petitioner paid necessary fees to conduct survey in the land and also to fix four boundaries and the same was conducted on 04.09.2024. Thereafter when the petitioner attempted to put fence over the property the private respondents assaulted her and also caused damage to the fence, hence she has filed a complaint before the first respondent and the same was registered in Crime No. 336 of 2024 for the offences under Sections 296(b),329(3), 2/5

115(2), 324(4), 351(2) of BNS. Again on 10.10.2024 the petitioner attempted to fence the property but the private respondent prevented and also quarreled with her, hence she has filed the above petition.

3. This Court has not expressed any of its view with regard to the merits of the representation made by the petitioner. It is needless to point out that whenever a representation of this nature is made, the respondents are duty bound to consider the same in one way or the other. Nonconsideration of the same would amount to dereliction of ordinary duties of their office and as such, this Court would be justified in invoking its powers conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to direct them to consider the petitioner's representation within a stipulated time

4. In view of the limited prayer sought for by the petitioner in the petition without going into the merits of the case there shall be a direction to the first respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 10.10.2024 and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

3/5

5. With the above direction the Writ Petition stands disposed of. No costs.

13.11.2024 Index: Yes/No Internet : Yes/No aav To

1. The Inspector of Police Pappanadu Police Station Pappanadu, Thanjavur District

2. The Additional Public Prosecutor Madurai Bench of Madras High Court Madurai.

4/5

M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.

aav 13.11.2024 5/5