Madras High Court
S.Suryamurthy vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 13 July, 2021
Crl.O.P.No.10971 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 13.07.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR
Crl.O.P No.10971 of 2021
S.Suryamurthy
S/o.late Sengodam Pillai ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The State of Tamil Nadu
Rep by Superintendent of Police
Salem-1
Salem District
2.The Inspector of Police
Annathanampatti Police Station
Salem-1
Salem District
3.Jaya
W/o.Subramani
4.Subramani
Husband of 3rd respondent ... Respondents
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Code of
Criminal Procedure to issue direction, directing the 1st respondent to give police
protection to the petitioner's land comprised in T.S.No.10/1, situate in Ward E,
Block 9, Sooramangalam Main Road, Pallapatty village, Salem Taluk, Salem
District as per his representation dated 09.12.2020.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
1/6
Crl.O.P.No.10971 of 2021
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Arunkumar
For Respondent : Mr.E.Raj Thilak
Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
ORDER
(This case has been heard through video conference)
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking to issue a
direction, directing the 1st respondent to give police protection to the
petitioner's land comprised in T.S.No.10/1, situate in Ward E, Block 9,
Sooramangalam Main Road, Pallapatty village, Salem Taluk, Salem District as
per his representation dated 09.12.2020.
2.The petitioner submits that on 09.12.2020 he had sent a copy of the
complaint to the Collector, Corporation Commissioner, Tahsildhar,
Commissioner of Police, Inspector of Annathanampatti Police Station and
Assistant Commissioner, Salem but no action has been taken against his
complaint.
3.The contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner's family property
is near a lake in T.S.No.10/1, situate in Ward E, Block 9, Sooramangalam Main
Road, Pallpatty Village, Salem Taluk, Salem. In 1934 the petitioner's father
purchased the said property and in the year 1985 the administrators, anti social
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.O.P.No.10971 of 2021
elements, revenue authorities have attempted to encroach into the property and
other two persons property has been forcibly taken from them. Therefore, the
petitioner filed a suit in O.S.No.933 of 2004 before the Additional District
Munsif, Salem and thereafter filed an appeal in A.S.No.68 of 2007 before the
Additional Subordinate Judge, Salem and the second appeal in S.A.No.1478/
2008. In all the civil suits, the petitioner's rights and ownership was confirmed.
When that being the case one Jaya, who is a lessee for the Corporation Lorry
Market put up a fencing around his property and attempted to encroach it on
28.01.2019, thereby the petitioner lodged a complaint before the respondent
police. The respondent police had enquired the said Jaya and also directed her
to remove the fencing and encroachments. Though the said fencing materials
were removed, the pillars are retained. On 25.09.2019, a fuse carrier in the
property was damaged and a complaint was lodged in C.S.R.No.984 of 2019.
On 09.06.2020 the complaint was lodged to stall the said Jaya and her husband
using JCB to level the land of the petitioner by force. The petitioner though has
the title and civil suit decreed in his favour, he is unable to enjoy the property
as the said Jaya, her husband Subramani are making continuous attempts to
take over the property by all means. Despite a complaint having been lodged,
no action has been taken against his complaint. Further, the learned counsel
placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Radhika Sri Hari
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.O.P.No.10971 of 2021
& another vs. The Commissioner of Police, Coimbatore City, Coimbatore &
another reported in 2014 2 LW 927, wherein this Court was dealing with
similar set of facts and after referring to the relevant Government Order, had
held that in such cases the police protection has to be given in order to enable
the owner of the property to secure his property.
4.Mr.E.Raj Thilak, the Government Advocate (Crl. Side) would submit
that the complaint of the petitioner dated 09.12.2020 had not been received by
them. If any complaint is lodged by him, necessary action would have been
taken by the respondent police.
5.In view of the submissions made by the petitioner, despite having civil
Court order in his favour, he is unable to enjoy his property, the Inspector of
Police, Annathanampatti Police Station, Salem to receive a fresh complaint
from the petitioner and thereafter proceed with the enquiry and since the
petitioner constantly being harassed by the said Jaya, her husband Subramani
and their men, the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Salem to monitor the
enquiry and to give protection to the petitioner's property.
6.In view of the above, the respondent police, viz. The Inspector of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.O.P.No.10971 of 2021
Police and Assistant Commissioner, Salem to give protection to the petitioner's
property from encroachment. This Criminal Original Petition stands disposed of
accordingly.
13.07.2021
kas
Index: yes / no
Internet: yes / no
Speaking / Non speaking order
To.
1.Superintendent of Police
Salem-1
Salem District
2.The Inspector of Police
Annathanampatti Police Station
Salem-1
Salem District
3.The Public Prosecutor
High Court of Madras
Chennai 600 104
M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.
kas
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.O.P.No.10971 of 2021
Crl.O.P No.10971 of 2021
13.07.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
