Dismissed¶34

V.Gobinath v. State Rep by the District Superintendent of Police

Madras HC3 Jun 2026WP/18788/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition (mandamus, Article 226) seeking police protection for petitioner, family and 8.50 acres at Survey No.72, Patta No.387, Thondamanallur Village, Cheyur Taluk, Chengalpattu District, based on pending representation dated 30.04.2025; dismissed because civil title/possession dispute with respondents 6 to 8 (objecting to fencing) falls outside writ jurisdiction; petitioner directed to competent Civil Court; no costs; single-judge bench G.K. Ilanthiraiyan J.; decision date 03-06-2026.

What did the court decide?

In view of the existence of a civil dispute relating to the title and possession of the subject property, this Court cannot adjudicate the same in the present writ proceedings, as such issues can be resolved only by the competent Civil Court. ¶33

V.Gobinath Vs State Rep by the District… — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

¶1

WP No. 18788 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 03-06-2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN WP No. 18788 of 2025

¶6

V.Gobinath

¶7

S/o. T.V. Vedathiri, Thondamanallur Village, Ilathur Post, Cheyyur Taluk, Chengalpattu District.

¶8

..Petitioner(s)

¶9

¶10

State of Tamilnadu, Rep. by the District Superintendent Of Police, Chengalpattu-603111, Cehngalpattu District.

¶11

The Inspector Of Police G-4, Cheyur Police Station, Cheyur, 603302, Chengalpattu District.

¶12

The Assistant Director Of Survey And Land Reforms, Chengalpattu.

¶13

The Revenue Tahsildar, Office Of The Tahsildar Cheyyur, Cheyyur Taluk, Chengalpattu District.

¶14

The Revenue Inspector, Ilathur Inner Circle Cheyyur, Cheyyur Taluk, Chengalpattu District.

¶15

B. Venkatesan, S/o. M.M. Bakthavatchalam, No.3/871, Pillaiyar Koil Street, Mettukuppam, Chennai-600 096.

¶16

A.D. Tikkaram S/o. Dhanasekaran, No.3/951, Pillaiyar Koil Street, Mettukuppam, Chennai-600 096.

¶17

M. Selvaraj, S/o. Mahalingam, No.6, Sarangapani Street, Sholinganallur, Chennai-600 119.

¶18

..Respondent(s)

¶19

__________ Page1 of 5

¶20

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

¶21

WP No. 18788 of 2025

¶22

PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the Respondents 1 and 2 herein to give Police Protection to the Petitioner, to his family members and to his property viz., lands measuring 8.50 acres comprised under Survey No.72 under Patta No.387 at Thondamanallur Village, Cheyur Taluk, Chengalpattu District by considering the Petitioner’s representation dated 30.04.2025 pending before the Respondents 1 and 2 herein.

¶23

For Petitioner(s): M/s.V. Chinnasami For Respondent(s): Mr.R.Ganesh Kumar Government Advocate (Criminal Side) for R1 To R5 Mr.S.Viswanathan for M/s.Dass And Viswa Associates for R6 to R8

¶24

ORDER

¶25

This Writ Petition has been filed seeking a direction to Respondents 1 and 2 to give Police Protection to the Petitioner, his family members, and his property, viz., lands measuring 8.50 acres comprised i n Survey No.72, under Patta No.387, situated at Thondamanallur Village, Cheyur Taluk, Chengalpattu District, by considering the Petitioner’s representation dated 30.04.2025, which is pending before the Respondents 1 and 2.

¶26

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record.

¶27

Page2 of 5

¶28

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

¶29

WP No. 18788 of 2025

¶30

3. On a perusal of the records, it is seen that a title dispute exists in

¶31

respect of the subject property between the petitioner and the respondents 6 to 8 herein. It is the specific case of respondents 6 to 8 that they are objecting to the petitioner putting up any fencing on the said property.

¶32

4. In view of the existence of a civil dispute relating to the title and

¶33

possession of the property, this Court cannot adjudicate the same in the present writ proceedings, as such issues can be resolved only by the competent Civil Court. Hence, this Court is of the view that the petitioner is at liberty to work out his remedy before the competent Civil Court in accordance with law.

¶34

5. Accordingly, this writ petition stands dismissed. No costs.

¶35

03-06-2026

¶36

Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No

¶37

¶38

__________ Page3 of 5

¶39

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

¶40