Madras High Court
Mrs.Aruna vs State Rep.By on 2 July, 2021
CRL.O.P.No.20651 of 2020 of 2021
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.
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)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page No.1 of 6
CRL.O.P.No.20651 of 2020 of 2021
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 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRL.O.P.No.20651 of 2020 of 2021
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.
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRL.O.P.No.20651 of 2020 of 2021
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.
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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRL.O.P.No.20651 of 2020 of 2021
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 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 of 2021
M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.
klt
CRL.O.P.No.20651 of 2020
02.07.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
