Dismissed

Senthil v. the Superintendent of Police

Madras HC13 Mar 2024WP/6536/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought a mandamus directing the Tahsildar to dispose of his representation for survey and measurement of his land. The court held the dispute was civil in nature and the writ not maintainable, dismissing the petition against all respondents with Rs.10,000 costs against the petitioner.

What did the court decide?

None; petition dismissed with Rs.10,000 cost to Chief Minister's Relief Fund, liberty to seek civil remedies.

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

¶1

W.P.No.6536 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 13.03.2024

¶4

Coram:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN

W.P. No.6536 of 2024

Senthil

... Petitioner

Vs.

The Superintendent of Police District Superintendent Office Krishnagiri District

¶11

The Inspector of Police Kaveripattinam Police Station Krishnagiri

¶12

The Tahsildar Tahsildar Office, Krishnagiri Taluk Krishnagiri District ... Respondents

¶13

Prayer : Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the 3rd respondent to dispose of the representation of the petitioner dated 15.02.2024 to measure the petitioner's land situate at Survey No.407B/2 measuring 2.14 acres of land at Karukansaavadi, Kaveripattinam, Krishnagiri within a stipulated period.

¶14

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Soundar Vijay Arul Ram

¶15

For R1 and R2 : Mr.S.Sugendran Additional Public Prosecutor For R3 : Mr.T.Arun Kumar Additional Government Pleader

¶16

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

1/5

W.P.No.6536 of 2024

ORDER

This Writ Petition is filed seeking to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the 3rd respondent to dispose of the representation of the petitioner dated 15.02.2024 to measure the petitioner's land situate at Survey No.407B/2 measuring 2.14 acres of land at Karukansaavadi, Kaveripattinam, Krishnagiri within a stipulated period.

¶21

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner made an application on 12.09.2023, to measure the land and earmark the boundaries and he had also paid the requisite fee on 08.09.2023 itself. Further, the petitioner made a representation dated 15.02.2023 to the respondents 1 and 2/Police seeking police protection at the time of surveying the land since the adjacent land owners were creating disturbance. However, the same has not been considered. Hence, the present writ Petition is filed.

¶22

Mr.S.Sugendran, Additional Public Prosecutor takes notice

¶23

for the respondents 1 and 2. Mr.T.Arun Kumar, learned Additional Government Pleader takes notice for the 3rd respondent.

¶24

Since the respondents 1 and 2/Police have been impleaded

¶25

unnecessarily, the Writ Petition is dismissed insofar as the respondents 1 and 2 are concerned with cost of Rs.10,000/-.

¶26

2/5

¶27

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

¶28

W.P.No.6536 of 2024

¶29

Heard and perused the materials available on record.

¶30

There is no allegation against the 3^rd respondent/Tahsildar. If

¶31

at all any private party is trying to interfere with his possession, the petitioner has to approach the Civil Court.

¶32

Since the dispute raised by the petitioner is civil in nature, the Writ Petition is not maintainable. However, the petitioner is at liberty to work out is remedy in the manner known to law.

¶33

Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed insofar as the 3^rd respondent is concerned. No costs.

¶34

As stated above, the Writ Petition is dismissed insofar as the respondents 1 and 2 are concerned with cost of Rs.10,000/-. The petitioner is directed to pay the cost of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) to the credit of Chief Minister's Relief Fund.

¶35

13.03.2024

¶36

ksa-2 Index : Yes / No Neutral Citation Case : Yes/No

¶37

3/5

¶38

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

¶39

W.P.No.6536 of 2024

¶40

¶41

The Superintendent of Police District Superintendent Office Krishnagiri District

¶42

The Inspector of Police Kaveripattinam Police Station Krishnagiri

¶43

The Tahsildar Tahsildar Office, Krishnagiri Taluk Krishnagiri District

¶44

4/5

¶45

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

W.P.No.6536 of 2024

P.VELMURUGAN. J.

Ksa-2

W.P.6536 of 2024

13.03.2024

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

¶52

5/5

Senthil v. the Superintendent of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Senthil 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

Baktharatchagan Vs the Sub-Registrar

V.Subramani Vs the Tahsildar

Sushil Lalwani, Vs The Sub Registrar

N.Sukumar Vs the District Collector

M.Murugan Vs the Assistant Director of

K.Periyasamy Vs the District Collector