A writ appeal filed to set aside a single judge order dismissing a petition for police protection and compensation for loss of harvested crops. The High Court upheld the dismissal, holding that no specific judicial direction existed for protection and liability during pending civil proceedings.
Writ appeal dismissed with no costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED:17.02.2014
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE R.SUDHAKAR
AND
THE HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE V.M.VELUMANI
Writ Appeal (MD) No.168 OF 2014 against
WP(MD)No.10463 of 2010
A.Veerappa
... Appellant/Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Secretary to the Government of Tamilnadu Home Department, Secretariat, St. George Fort, Chennai.
Home Department, Secretariat,
2.The Superintendent of Police, Madurai Rural District,Madurai.
3.The Inspector of Police, Melur Police Station, Melur, Madurai.
4.Dr.A.Manavalan s/o.Alagulakshmanan Urasia Clinic,West Street, Melur
Madurai District. ... Respondents/Respondents
PRAYER : Writ appeal filed under Section 15 of Letters Patents Act to set aside the order dated 11.03.2011 passed in W.P.(MD) No.10463 of 2010 on the file of this Court.
Prayer in WP(MD). 10463/ 2010 :
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a WRIT OF MANDAMUS directing the 3rd respondent to pay a sum of Rs.1,28,700/- towards compensation to the petitioner who sustained loss due to the illegal act committed by the 3rd respondent, allowing the respondent 4 and his relatives to harvest the crops raised by the petitioner from the lands in survey numbers 297/8, 300/2 in Melavalavu village, survey numbers 416/7B, 422/10 and 422/13 in Attapatti village and survey numbers 180/12B2, 180/3, 181/4A, 181/4B, 183/3A in Thumbaipatty village, Melur Taluk, Madurai District and to give protection to the petitioner.
For Appellants : Mr.T.K.Gopalan
For Respondent : Mr.B.Pugalendhi 1 to 3 Special Government Pleader https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
2
JUDGMENT (Judgment of the Court was delivered by R.SUDHAKAR, J.)
The mandamus was filed for compensation from the third respondent Inspector of Police, alleging that loss has been sustained by the writ petitioner/appellant by the illegal acts of the third respondent police by allowing the fourth respondent private individual to harvest the crops raised in the property mentioned in the writ petition.
https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4. In the absence of specific finding against one or other person, we find no reason to interfere with the order of the learned single Judge.
3
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(Writs)
/TRUE COPY/
Sub Assistant Registrar
To
W.A.(MD) No.168 of 2014
17.02.2014
RR
PA/03.03.2014/3P/5C
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the police must compensate the petitioner for loss of crops when there was no specific judicial direction for protection.
Whether the dismissal of the writ petition in the original petition by the single Judge was justified given the pending civil suit.
Whether damages can be sought against the police when there is no finality regarding the right of possession or ownership.
3 provisions across 3 enactments
A.Veerappa
The Secretary to the Government of Tamilnadu Home Department
The Superintendent of Police, Madurai Rural District
The Inspector of Police, Melur Police Station
Dr.A.Manavalan
R.Sudhakar
V.M.Velumani
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
