Dismissed¶24

M.Madhu v. the State Rep by Its

Madras HC14 Feb 2025WP/5237/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court single-judge order dismissing a writ of mandamus petition seeking police protection for the petitioner and his land (Survey No. 330/1A, 0.58.0 hectares / 1.43 acres, Salinayanapalli Village, Bargur Taluk, Krishnagiri District); Court held the dispute with private respondents 3 to 6 was civil in nature, police protection confined to matters of life and personal safety, and directed the petitioner to the Civil Court; keywords: police protection, writ of mandamus, Article 226, civil dispute, Krishnagiri, dismissed, no costs.

What did the court decide?

The Court declined to grant police protection to the petitioner's property because the dispute between the petitioner and respondents 3 to 6 is civil in nature. ¶24

M.Madhu Vs the State Rep by Its — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

W.P.No. 5237 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 14.02.2025

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

¶6

W.P.No.5237 of 2025

¶7

M.Madhu ... Petitioner Vs. The State rep by its: 1.The Superintendent of Police, Krishnagiri District. 2.The Inspector of Police, BARGUR Police Station, Krishnagiri District.

¶8

3.Lakshmi 4.Sivagami 5.Sathiya 6.Jothi ..Respondents

¶9

PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of Writ of Mandamus directing the first and second respondents to consider the petitioner's representation dated 05.12.2024 and provide necessary police protection to the petitioner and his property comprised in Survey No.330/1A measuring an extent of 0.58.0 hectares (1.43 acres) is situated in Salinayanapalli Village, Bargur Taluk, Krishnagiri District.

¶10

Page 1 of 4

¶11

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

¶12

W.P.No. 5237 of 2025

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.P.M.Jayachandran

¶14

For R1 and R2 : Mr.K.M.D.Muhilan, Government Advocate (crl.side)

¶15

O R D E R

¶16

This petition has been filed seeking a direction to the first and second respondents to provide adequate police protection to the petitioner and his property, Survey No. 330/1A, measuring an extent of 0.58.0 hectares (1.43 acres) is situated in Salinayanapalli Village, Bargur Taluk, Krishnagiri District.

¶17

2. T he learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the owner of the property comprised in Survey No. 330/1A, measuring an extent of 0.58.0 hectares (1.43 acres) is situated in Salinayanapalli Village, Bargur Taluk, Krishnagiri District. However, the respondents 3 to 6 are disturbing the petitioner’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property. Therefore, the petitioner submitted a representation seeking police protection for his life and property.

¶18

Page 2 of 4

¶19

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

¶20

W.P.No. 5237 of 2025

¶21

The learned Government Advocate(crl.side) would submit that

¶22

the dispute between the petitioner and respondents 3 to 6 are civil in nature.

¶23

Heard both sides and perused the material available on record.

¶24

5. In view of the above, this Court is not inclined to grant police protection to the petitioner’s property as the dispute between the petitioner and respondents 3 to 6 pertains to civil in nature. Police protection is granted only in matters concerning the life and personal safety of the petitioner. Therefore, the appropriate remedy for the petitioner would be to approach the Civil Court for appropriate relief. Accordingly, this Writ Petition stands dismissed. No costs.

¶25

14.02.2025

¶26

Neutral citation : Yes/No Speaking/non-speaking order shk

¶27

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

¶28

W.P.No. 5237 of 2025

¶29

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.

¶30

shk