Disposed

Palanisami v. The Superintendent of Police

Madras HC20 Sept 2023WP/7198/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Supreme Court disposed of the matter. The respondent police undertook that private respondents will not disrupt the survey. Consequently, the court left it open to the petitioner to proceed with the survey.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner left to proceed with the survey; police to ensure protection and action against disruptors if private respondents breach their undertaking.

Palanisami Vs The Superintendent of Police — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P.No.7198 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 20.09.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH

¶6

W.P.No.7198 of 2023

Palanisami

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Superintendent of Police, Office of Superintendent of Police, Namakkal – 637 003.

¶11

2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Office of Deputy Superintendent of Police, Thiruchengode Road, Namakkal – 637 003.

¶12

3.The Inspector of Police, Sendamangalam Police Station, Sendamangalam, Namakkal District.

¶13

4.Nallamuthu

¶14

5.Eshwaran ...Respondents

¶15

PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents 1 to 3 to give police protection to the petitioner, Tahsildar and Surveyor to survey the petitioner's property without any disturbances comprised in Patta No.86, Old Survey No.168/1, New Survey No.248/1 totally measuring to an extent

¶16

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 1/4

¶17

W.P.No.7198 of 2023

¶18

of 9.24 cents at Puthukadu, Sottapalathu Village, Perakkarainadu, Namakkal District and to consider the petitioner's representation dated 07.02.2023.

¶19

For Petitioner : Mr.Deepan Uday For Respondents-1 to 3 : Mr.A.Gopinath Government Advocate (Crl. Side) For Respondents-4 & 5 : No appearance

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

This writ petition has been filed for a direction to the respondent police to provide police protection to the petitioner to enable the Tahsildar to survey the subject property based on the representation dated 07.02.2023.

¶22

Heard the learned counsel for petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing on behalf of respondents 1 to 3.

¶23

Learned Government Advocate on instructions submitted that the enquiry was conducted in C.S.R.No.10 of 2023. During enquiry, the private respondents undertook that they will not cause any disruption to the survey being conducted by the Tahsildar and based on the same the CSR was closed on 12.03.2023.

¶24

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2/4

¶25

W.P.No.7198 of 2023

¶26

In the light of the above submission made by the learned Government Advocate, it is left open to the petitioner to proceed with the survey with the help of Tahsildar and if the private respondents go back on their undertaking, the third respondent shall ensure that police protection is granted at the time of conducting survey and action is taken against persons, who are causing law and order problem.

¶27

This writ petition is disposed of in the above terms.

¶28

20.09.2023

¶29

Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No Speaking/Non-Speaking Order Neutral Citation : Yes/No rsi

¶30

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 3/4

¶31

W.P.No.7198 of 2023

¶32

N.ANAND VENKATESH, J

¶33

rsi

¶34

¶35

1.The Superintendent of Police, Office of Superintendent of Police, Namakkal – 637 003.

¶36

2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Office of Deputy Superintendent of Police, Thiruchengode Road, Namakkal – 637 003.

¶37

3.The Inspector of Police, Sendamangalam Police Station, Sendamangalam, Namakkal District.

¶38

4.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

¶39

W.P.No.7198 of 2023

¶40

20.09.2023

¶41

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4/4

Palanisami v. The Superintendent of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Palanisami v. The Superintendent of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

I.Thilagaraj Christopher Vs Dr.P.Balachandar and another

Nijam Vs Inspector of Police

Sathish Kumar Vs a.Sekar (Died) K. Bharathi

The Chief Executive Officer Vs The Director General of Police

K.Elumalai Vs the State Rep by Its

Dr.S.Hyderi Vs The Inspector of POlice