Madras High CourtWP Crl.(MD)/1434/2025disposed of

Yagappan v. The Superintendent Of Police

2025-09-18Honourable Mr Justice Sunder Mohan4 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 18.09.2025

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN Yagappan S/o. Iruthayaraj ... Petitioner Vs.

1.The Superintendent Of Police, Ramanathapuram District.

2.The Inspector Of Police, Thiruppalaikudi Police Station, Ramanathapuram District.

3.Manokaran ... Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 and 2 to give the police protection of limb and life of the petitioner agriculture properties in survey nos.299/5F, 301/5A,522/5B, and 27/4A situated at Thumbadaikakottai Revenue Village, R.S. Mangalam Taluk, Ramanathapuram District, based on the petitioner's representation dated 08.09.2025 within the time stipulated by this Court. For Petitioner : Mr.H.Velavadhas 1/4

For Respondents : Mr.R.M.Anbunithi Additional Public Prosecutor

O R D E R

The petition for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents 1 and 2 to give police protection to his life and protect his properties in Survey Nos. 299/5F, 301/5A,522/5B, and 27/4A, situated at Thumbadaikakottai Revenue Village, R.S. Mangalam Taluk, Ramanathapuram District, based on the petitioner's complaint dated 08.09.2025.

2.According to the petitioner, he is the absolute owner of the property in question and the third respondent is attempting to disturb his possession and is also preventing the petitioner from surveying the land. Therefore, the petitioner made a representation to the respondent police requesting them to prevent the third respondent from interfering in the possession of the petitioner and not to disturb the petitioner in carrying out the agricultural activities and to take appropriate action against the third respondent. 3.Heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the 2/4

respondent police.

4.The respondent police have no right to interfere in any property dispute between the petitioner and the third respondent. Unless a cognizable offence is made out on the complaint, the police have no jurisdiction to act on any other complaint. If the petitioner is aggrieved by any action of the third respondent in preventing him from carrying on agricultural activities, the remedy available is to approach the civil Court. 5.With the above observation, this Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs.

18.09.2025 NCC: Yes/No Internet : Yes/No Index:Yes/No cp To

1. The Superintendent Of Police, Ramanathapuram District.

3/4

SUNDER MOHAN,J.

cp 2.The Inspector Of Police, Thiruppalaikudi Police Station, Ramanathapuram District 3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

W.P.crl(MD)No.1434 of 2025 18.09.2025 4/4