Madras High Court
Prabakaran vs The Superintendent Of Police on 28 November, 2023
Author: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Bench: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
W.P.No.30240 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 28.11.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
W.P.No.30240 of 2022
Prabakaran ...Petitioner
-Vs-
1.The Superintendent of Police,
Dharmapuri District,
Dharmapuri – 5.
2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Pennagaram Police Sub-Division,
Pennagaram, Dharmapuri – 636 810.
3.The Inspector of Police,
Eriyur Police Station,
Eriyur, Pennagaram Taluk,
Dharmapuri District.
4.The Sub-Inspector,
Perumbalai Police Station,
Pennagaram Taluk,
Dharmapuri District – 636 811.
5.The Tasildhar,
Pennagaram Taluk,
Dharmapuri District – 636 810.
6.Palanisamy
7.Anandaayi ... Respondents
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 1 of 6
W.P.No.30240 of 2022
Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India praying
for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, forbear the respondents 1 to 5 from not
to interfere in the issues of civil dispute with regard to the property of vacant
agriculture land comprised in S.No.168/C having a total extent of 7 Acres 54
Cents till the adjudication of issues by the appropriate civil forum.
For Petitioner : Mr.P.G.Thiyagu
For R1 to R5 : Mr.A.Gopinath
Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
ORDER
This Writ Petition has been filed for direction directing the
respondents 1 to 5 herein from not to interfere in the issues of civil dispute with
regard to the property of vacant agriculture land comprised in S.No.168/C
admeasuring to an extent of 7 Acres 54 Cents till the adjudication of issues by
the appropriate civil forum.
2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the
learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondents and
perused the materials available on record.
3. It is seen that the sixth respondent is the owner of the
agricultural land comprised in S.No.168/C4B admeasuring to an extent of 3.77
Acres and in S.No.169/A1 admeasuring to an extent of 3.08 Acres, situated at
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Kavakadu, Kendeiyanahalli Village, Pennagaram Taluk, Dharmapuri District.
There was dispute between the petitioner's father and the family members of
one Kathan in respect of the property comprised in S.No.168/C. The said
Kathan filed a suit in O.S.No.275 of 1979 and the same was dismissed by a
Judgment and Decree dated 17.03.1984. Thereafter, the said property was
partitioned between the family members of the sixth respondent by way of
Partition Deed vide document No.2641 of 2020. Thereafter, the sixth
respondent submitted a representations to survey the land. However, it was not
considered and as such, the sixth respondent filed writ petition before this Court
in W.P.No.9127 of 2022. This Court, by an order dated 13.04.2022, recorded
the submission of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that if the petitioner
therein fixes a date for survey with the revenue officials and intimate to the
respondents and adjacent land owners, due enquiry would be conducted and
appropriate protection will be given and dispose of the same.
4. The case of the petitioner is that the land comprised in
S.No.168/A admeasuring to an extent of 4 acres 66 cents and the land
comprised in S.No.168/C admeasuring to an extent of 7 acres 54 cents, was
originally purchased by the petitioner's forefather. The petitioner is none other
than the grandson of said Kathan. The only contention raised by the petitioner
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
is that without adding the petitioner, who is in occupation of the adjacent land,
the sixth respondent filed writ petition before this Court and obtained an order
dated 13.04.2022.
5. As stated supra, though the petitioner or his grandfather is not
held to the writ petition, this Court disposed the writ petition on recording the
submission made by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the
third and fourth respondents herein. However, the third and fourth respondents
have no say in the civil dispute between the petitioner and the sixth and seventh
respondents herein. As stated supra, the sixth respondent approached this
Court to survey his land. Therefore, if any request made by the sixth
respondent to survey his land and if the fifth respondent ordered to survey the
land and at the time of surveying the land, if any disturbances caused by the
petitioner or the counter parties, on the request made by the surveyor, the third
and fourth respondents can consider the said request and pass appropriate
orders to provide necessary police protection, while surveying the land as per
the original title deeds.
6. With the above direction, this Writ Petition stands disposed of. It
is made clear that if any complaint lodged by the petitioner or by the sixth and
seventh respondents, the third and fourth respondents are directed to deal with
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
the complaint and register the complaint if any cognizable offence is made out.
No costs.
28.11.2023
Internet: Yes
Index : Yes/No
Speaking/Non Speaking order
Lpp
To
1.The Superintendent of Police,
Dharmapuri District,
Dharmapuri – 5.
2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Pennagaram Police Sub-Division,
Pennagaram, Dharmapuri – 636 810.
3.The Inspector of Police,
Eriyur Police Station,
Eriyur, Pennagaram Taluk,
Dharmapuri District.
4.The Sub-Inspector,
Perumbalai Police Station,
Pennagaram Taluk,
Dharmapuri District – 636 811.
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN. J,
Lpp
5.The Tasildhar,
Pennagaram Taluk,
Dharmapuri District – 636 810.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
6. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
28.11.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
