Madras High Court
Renuka vs The Commissioner Of Police on 25 August, 2025
Author: N. Sathish Kumar
Bench: N. Sathish Kumar
W.P.No.22992 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 25.08.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR
W.P.Crl.No.22992 of 2024
Renuka ... Petitioner
Versus
1.The Commissioner of Police
Tambaram
2. The Inspector of Police
Thalambur Police Station
Chengalpet District
3.The Tahsildar
Vandalur Taluk, Chengalpet District
4.Suganthy
5.Shyamsudar
6.Jhonson Prabhakaran
7.Umamageshwari .. Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India,
pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 1st and 2nd to provide
adequate police protection for the petitioner to survey the land comprised in
survey no. 36/1B1 measuring to 0.28 cents situated at No.1/101, Manthope
Street,Siruseri village, Vandalur Taluk, Chengalpattu District.
Page 1 of 4
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/08/2025 01:49:43 pm )
W.P.No.22992 of 2024
For Petitioner : Mr.P.Anbazhagan
For Respondents : Mr.K.M.D.Muhilan for R1 to R3
Additional Public Prosecutor
No appearance for R4 to R7
ORDER
The writ petition has been filed seeking to direct the 1st and 2nd
respondents to provide adequate police protection for the petitioner to
survey the land comprised in survey no. 36/1B1 measuring to 0.28 cents
situated at No.1/101, Manthope Street,Siruseri village, Vandalur Taluk,
Chengalpattu District.
2. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner when
the petitioner tried to measure the property, the private respondents are
disturbing the petitioner. Hence, the petition.
3. Heard both sides and perused the materials placed on record.
4. At the out set, this Court is unable to countenance the submission
of the learned counsel for the petitioner. If at all the petitioner has any
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/08/2025 01:49:43 pm )
dispute with regard to measurement and survey of the land, the proper
course is to approach Civil Court by making the respondents as a necessary
party and to appoint an Advocate Commissioner, without resorting the same,
as a blanket order police protection cannot be granted. In this regard, the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment of P.R.Muralidharan and others Vs.
Swami Dharmananda Theertha Padar and others reported in (2006) 4
SCC 501 has held that what are all the matters for which police protection
can be granted. For better appreciation, the relevant portion of the judgment
is extracted below:
“...19. A writ for “police protection” so-called, has only
a limited scope, as, when the court is approached for
protection of rights declared by a decree or by an order passed
by a civil court. It cannot be extended to cases where rights
have not been determined either finally by the civil court or, at
least at an interlocutory stage in an unambiguous manner, and
then too in furtherance of the decree or order.”
5. In view of the above, this writ petition stands dismissed. No costs.
25.08.2025
dhk
Index :Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
N. SATHISH KUMAR, J.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/08/2025 01:49:43 pm )
dhk
To
1.The Commissioner of Police
Tambaram
2. The Inspector of Police
Thalambur Police Station
Chengalpet District
3.The Tahsildar
Vandalur Taluk, Chengalpet District
25.08.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/08/2025 01:49:43 pm )
