Madras High Court
“For Being Mentioned” At The ... vs State Rep.By on 2 July, 2021
Crl.O.P.No.20651 of 2020
Crl.O.P.No.20651 of 2020
M. NIRMAL KUMAR,J.,
This matter came up today before this Court under the caption
“For Being Mentioned” at the instance of the learned counsel for the
petitioner.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioners has brought to the
notice of this Court that in paragraph No.2 of the order in
Crl.O.P.No.20651 of 2020, dated 02.07.2021, the survey number has
been wrongly mentioned as "731/1f " instead of "721/1f" and the
property has been purchased in the year 2009, but, in the order, it has
been wrongly mentioned as 2012 , which is a typographical error and
sought for rectification of the same. He has also submitted that the extent
of 16.5 cents has been omitted to be mentioned.
1
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.O.P.No.20651 of 2020
3. Considering the submission made by the learned counsel for
the petitioner, Registry is directed to replace the first sentence of the
paragraph no.2 of the order dated 02.07.2021 as follows :
" 2. The contention of the petitioner is
that the petitioner had purchased the property to the
extent of 33.50 & 16.5 cents at Mathigiri Village in
Survey Nos.720/2B, 721/1F of 50 cents through a
registered sale deed in Document No.3129/2009 ,
dated 01.10.2009."
4. Registry is directed to issue corrected copy of the order.
18.08.2021
mrp
Note : Issue order copy on 19.08.2021
2
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.O.P.No.20651 of 2020
M. NIRMAL KUMAR,J.,
mrp
Crl.O.P.No.20651 of 2020
18.08.2021
3
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.O.P.No.20651 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 02.07.2021
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR
CRL.O.P.No.20651 of 2020
Mrs.Aruna
... Petitioner
Versus
1.State Rep.by
The Sub Inspector of Police,
Mathagiri Police Station,
Krishnagiri District.
2.P.Muniraj
3.P.Nagaraj
4.P.Muni Ellappa
5.P.Srinivasan
6.P.Muniraj
S/o.M.Siva
... Respondents
Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure, to direct the respondent/police to provide police
protection to the petitioner for measuring the land and lay fence in her
property based on the complaint dated 29.10.2020.
4
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.O.P.No.20651 of 2020
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Gopinath
For Respondents : Mr.S.Vinothkumar, (for R1)
for Public Prosecutor
(Crl.side)
: Mr.
P.M.Jayachandran (for R2 to R5)
ORDER
This petition filed seeking a direction to direct the first
respondent police to provide police protection to the petitioner for
measuring the land and lay fence in her property, based on her complaint
dated 29.10.2020.
2.The contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner had
purchased the property to the extent of 16.5 cents at Mathigiri Village in
Survey Nos.720/2B, 731/1F out of 33.50 cents, purchased in the year
2012. For surveying the property and fixing and earmarking the
boundaries of the land, the petitioner had gone along with her
father/Venkatarama Reddy, mother/Suseelammal, husband/Sridhar
Reddy and her brother-in-law Jayapal Reddy. At that time, one Kumar,
the adjacent land owner along with Pappiah @ Centry Pappiah, his sons
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.O.P.No.20651 of 2020
viz., Muniraj, Nagaraj, Muni Ellappa and Muniraj, S/o.Siva have jointly
attacked the petitioner and her family members. Further, they have
lodged a false complaint in Crime No.2 of 2012. After completion of
investigation, charge sheet was filed and the same was taken on file in
S.C.No.79 of 2013, for the offence under Section 147, 341, 323 & 324 of
IPC., by the file the learned Principal District Judge, Krishnagiri. After
trial, by judgment dated 02.02.2015 the petitioner and her family
members were acquitted from the case. According to the petitioner, the
property stands in the name of the petitioner and she also obtained Patta
No.4244. The petitioner had approached the Tahsildar, through Deputy
Surveyor to measure the land and earmark the boundaries. On
verification of the documents produced by the petitioner, the Tahsildar
directed to survey the land. For this purpose, the petitioner also made
payment of Rs.1,600/- + Rs.100/- in the Treasury through State Bank of
India as early as July and August 2020. Thereafter, the surveyor had
come to measure the land and even at that time, the adjacent land owner
had come with a knife and iron rods and attempted to assault the
petitioner and the surveyor, hence, the land could not be surveyed.
Hence, the petitioner has filed this petition.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.O.P.No.20651 of 2020
3.The learned counsel appearing for the respondents 2 to 5
submitted that the respondents 2 to 5 have no objection for surveying the
land impartially as per the Patta and revenue records, without affecting
the right of the petitioner and the respondents 2 to 5 in any manner.
4.Considering the rival submissions and on perusal of the
material records, it is seen that there is no dispute with respect to the
ownership and title to the property. The property stands in the name of
the petitioner. The revenue records namely Patta is also in the name of
the petitioner. The petitioner also paid the charges for surveying the land
and the copies of the Challans produced before this Court. After
verification of the documents produced by the petitioner, the Revenue
Authorities have directed the petitioner to pay the charges for surveying
the land. After payment, the land of the petitioner was directed to be
surveyed by the Surveyor by the Tahsildar. Despite the order of the
Tahsildar and payment of charges by the petitioner, the land could not be
surveyed due to the threat made by the adjacent land owners.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.O.P.No.20651 of 2020
5.In view of the same, the first respondent-Police is directed to
give police protection to the petitioner, surveyor and other revenue
officials, who are public servants, to survey the land. The Surveyor and
other revenue officials are directed to survey and earmark the boundaries
of the lands of the petitioner as per the revenue records. In case of any
threat or obstruction caused by the adjacent land owners, the first
respondent police shall issue necessary warning to such obstructer not to
take law into their own hands and despite such warning, if any further
obstruction is made for surveying the land, an appropriate action to be
taken as against the obstructers in the manner known to law.
6.It is also made clear that the respondents 2 to 5 shall submit
their objections in writing, if any, to the Surveyor or to the Revenue
Officials or to approach the competent Civil Court to work out their
remedy without causing any hindrance to the survey of the said land by
the revenue officials.
7.With the above direction, this Criminal Original Petition is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.O.P.No.20651 of 2020
disposed of.
02.07.2021
Index: Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
klt
To
1.The Sub Inspector of Police,
Mathagiri Police Station,
Krishnagiri District.
2.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.O.P.No.20651 of 2020
M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.
klt
CRL.O.P.No.20651 of 2020
02.07.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
