Dismissed¶57

R.Gobalakrishnan v. the Superintendent of Police

Madras HC21 Aug 2025WP/18907/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court WP No. 18907 of 2023, decided 21-08-2025 by Justice N. Sathish Kumar. Petitioner sought police protection under Article 226 to construct a compound wall in R.S.No. 89/6B2, Chinnamudalaiar Chavadi Village, Kottakuppam, Villupuram; respondents included police officials, Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board, and private parties raising rival claims. Court held no blanket police protection can be granted where civil dispute/rival claim exists and title is unestablished, relying on PR.Muralidharan vs. Swami Dharmananda Theertha Padar (2006) 4 SCC; writ petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Such police protection cannot be granted, particularly when there is a rival claim by the other side. ¶46

R.Gobalakrishnan Vs the Superintendent of Police — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

WP No. 18907 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 21-08-2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR

¶6

WP No. 18907 of 2023

¶7

R.Gobalakrishnan

¶8

S/o.Rangasamypillai, No.11, Bajanai Koil Street, Periyamudaliar Chavady, Kottakuppam Post, Vanur Taluk, Villupuram-605 104.

¶9

Petitioner(s)

¶10

¶11

The Superintendent Of Police Villupuram District.

¶12

2.Inspector Of Police Kottakuppam Police Station, Villupuram District.

¶13

3.The Chief Engineer

¶14

Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board, No.5, Kamarajar Salai, Chepauk, Chennai-600 005.

¶15

4.I.Iyanar

¶16

S/o.Ammavasai, No.13, Tsunami Quarters, Chinnamudharliar Chavady Kuppam, Kottakuppam Post, Vanur Taluk, Villupuram District.

¶17

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

¶18

WP No. 18907 of 2023

¶19

5.GEETHA

¶20

W/o.Iyyanar, No.13, Tsunami Quarters, Chinnamudharliar Chavady Kuppam, Kottakuppam Post, Vanur Taluk, Villupuram District.

¶21

6.S.Lakshmi

¶22

W/o.Santhosh Kumar, No.11, Tsunami Quarters, Chinnamudharliar Chavady Kuppam, Kottakuppam Post, Vanur Taluk, Villupuram District.

¶23

7.NATARAJAN

¶24

Tsunami Quarters, Chinnamudharliar Chavady Kuppam, Kottakuppam Post, Vanur Taluk, Villupuram District.

¶25

8.PREMA

¶26

W/o.Natarajan, Tsunami Quarters, Chinnamudharliar Chavady Kuppam, Kottakuppam Post, Vanur Taluk, Villupuram District.

¶27

Respondent(s)

¶28

PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India directing the respondents 1 and 2 to give adequate police protection to the petitioner for constructing the compound wall in the lands comprised in R.S.No. 89/6B2, in Chinnamudalaiar Chavadi Village, Kottakuppam, Vanur Taluk, Villupuram District

¶29

For Petitioner(s): T.Sai Krishnan

¶30

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

¶31

WP No. 18907 of 2023

¶32

For Respondent(s): Mr.K.M.D.Muhilan Additional Public Prosecutor – R1 to R3

¶33

ORDER

¶34

This Writ Petition has been filed to direct the first and second respondents

¶35

to give adequate police protection to the petitioner for constructing the

¶36

compound wall in his land

¶37

The case of the petitioner is that when the petitioner attempted to

¶38

construct a compound wall in his lands in order to prevent the illegal trespass,

¶39

the respondents 4 to 8 are creating unnecessary ruckus and prevented the petitioner from putting up the compound wall. In this regard, he had also given a complaint before the second respondent. Despite the same, the first and second respondents have not provided any police protection. Hence, the present petition for the aforesaid relief.

¶40

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the

¶41

respondents 1 to 3 on instructions submitted that as the dispute between the

¶42

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

¶43

WP No. 18907 of 2023

¶44

parties is civil in nature, police protection has not be given and hence, prayed

¶45

for dismissal of this Writ Petition.

¶46

At the outset, this Court is of the view, such a protection cannot be

¶47

granted particularly, when there is rival claim by the other side. The practice of granting blanket police protection particularly, in respect of immovable property

¶48

without establishing title leads to serious consequences. In this aspect, the

¶49

Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of ''PR.Muralidharan and others Vs.Swami

¶50

Dharmananda Theertha Padar'' reported in 2006 4 SCC has held as follows:

¶51

''...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 unambigous manner, and then too in furtherance of the decree or order.''

¶52

Even as per the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner, there is a

¶53

civil dispute between the parties. In such view of the matter, there shall not be

¶54

any blanket Order for police protection.

¶55

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

¶56

WP No. 18907 of 2023

¶57