Disposed

Pownambal Ammal v. the Superintendent of Police

Madras HC13 Jun 2024CRL OP/8376/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner sought police protection to survey her land, fearing encroachment by the third respondent. The third respondent, present through counsel, had no objection to the measurement as per title documents. The Court directed police protection only if the surveyor requires it during the process.

What did the court decide?

Police protection directed only if the Surveyor needs any protection in the course of measuring the land.

Pownambal Ammal Vs the Superintendent of Police — Property and Title | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

Crl.O.P.No.8376 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 13.06.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN

¶6

Crl.O.P.No.8376 of 2024

¶7

Pownambal Ammal. ... Petitioner

¶8

/versus/

¶9

1. The Superintendent of Police, Kancheepuram District.

¶10

2. The Inspector of Police, Uthiramerur Police Station, Kancheepuram District.

¶11

3. R.Mohan ...Respondents

¶12

Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, to issue direction directing the respondents 1 & 2 herein to provide police protection to the petitioner to survey her property situated at Theetalam Village, Madurantakam Taluk, Chengalpattu District comprised in Survey No.155, Survey No.152/2 admeasuring to extents of 0.55 acres and 1.06 acres respectively and a Grama Natham Cheri property in old Survey No.96/1, New Survey No.301/22 admeasuring 15 cents based on the representation of the petitioner dated 08.01.2024 made to the respondents 1 & 2 herein.

¶13

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

¶14

1/4

¶15

Crl.O.P.No.8376 of 2024

¶16

For Petitioner	: Mr.B.Harikrishnan, for
	Mr.B.Viswanathan
For R1	: Mr.S.Udaya Kumar
	Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
For R2	: No appearance

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

The petitioner herein claiming title and right over the property situated in Survey No.155 extending 0.55 acres and Survey No.152/2 measuring 1.06 acres in Theetalam Village, Madurantakam Taluk, Chengalpattu District is before this Court seeking police protection for measuring the said land, since the 3 rd respondent is objecting the attempt of measuring the land and consequential fencing.

¶19

2 . On notice, the 3 rd respondent appeared through Learned Counsel and submitted that the petitioner herein under the guise of measuring his land, has trying to encroach upon the property of the 3 rd respondent and his relatives. If the petitioner wants to measure his land situated in S.Nos.155 & 152/2 as per the title document, he has no objection.

¶20

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

¶21

2/4

¶22

Crl.O.P.No.8376 of 2024

¶23

3 . Recording the said statement given by the Learned Counsel

¶24

appearing for the 3 rd respondent, this Criminal Original Petition is disposed of directing the respondent police to provide police protection in case the Surveyor needs any protection in the course of measuring the land of the petitioner as per revenue record.

¶25

4 . With the above observation, this Criminal Original Petition is

¶26

disposed of.

¶27

13.06.2024

¶28

Index : Yes/No. Neutral Citation : Yes/No. bsm

¶29

Copy to:-

¶30

1. The Superintendent of Police, Kancheepuram District.

¶31

2. The Inspector of Police, Uthiramerur Police Station, Kancheepuram District. 3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras, Chennai.

¶32

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

¶33

3/4

¶34

Crl.O.P.No.8376 of 2024

¶35

Dr.G.JAYACHANDRAN, J.

¶36

bsm

¶37

Crl.O.P.No.8376 of 2024

¶38

13.06.2024

¶39

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

¶40

4/4

Pownambal Ammal v. the Superintendent of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pownambal Ammal 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

R.Senthilvel Vs Anu Akshaya Auto Finance

Dr.Nirmal Joe M.B.B.S.D.M.R.D Vs the State Rep by

R.Chandran Vs Home, Prohibition and Excise Department

Azhagan @ Prabhu Vs Director General of Prisons and

Girishkumar @ Girish R Shah Vs State Rep by

M.Rajakala Vs the Sub Inspector of Police