BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 22/10/2008 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.RAJASURIA W.P(MD)No.9333 of 2008 1.Dilli 2.Renuka 3.Rengan 4.Vasantha 5.Radha 6.Sinthamani 7.Murugan 8.Suresh 9.Rajakumar 10.Vijayakumar 11.Satheesh . . . Petitioners Vs. 1.The Superintendent of Police, Kanyakumari District. 2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Padmanabhapuram, Kanyakumari District. 3.The Inspector of Police, Nithiravilai Police Station, Kanyakumari District. . . . Respondents PRAYER Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a writ of mandamus, to direct the respondents herein to provide police protection for the petitioners herein, for putting up a house in their patta lands in R.S.No.329/14/21, Ezhudesam Village, Vilavancode, Kanyakumari District, as per their representation dated 27.08.2008 forthwith. !For Petitioners ... Mr.F.Deepak ^For Respondents ... Mr.D.Sasikumar, Government Advocate * * * * :ORDER
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and also
Mr.D.Sasikumar, learned Government Advocate, who took notice on behalf of the
respondents.
2. The grievance of the petitioners as aired by the learned counsel for
the petitioner is to the effect that the eleven petitioners are holding
respective pattas issued by the Government in their favour; while they were
attempting to raise houses in their respective patta lands, some intruders are
trying to obstruct; thereupon the petitioners gave a petition to the respondents
for police protection, but there was no response.
3. Heard the learned Government Advocate.
4. Normally when there is an attempt by any third party in disturbing the
peaceful possession of an individual, the individual possessor should file a
suit and get injunction. But in this case, the learned counsel appearing for
the petitioners would submit that absolutely there was no title dispute as the
pattas are given by the Government and while raising constructions, some third
parties are obstructing. I make it clear that while exercising its jurisdiction
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court cannot decide the
title of anyone. However, the prayer of the petitioners is only to the limited
extent that the representation of the petitioners might be considered. Hence,
the following direction is issued:
The first respondent police shall consider the representation of the
petitioners dated 27.08.2008, after giving due opportunity of being heard to the
petitioners only for the purpose of giving physical protection to the
petitioners from they being attacked by others, but the police cannot decide the
title or otherwise of the petitioners relating to the lands.
5. I make it clear that if really there is any title dispute between the
petitioners and the third parties, it is for them to approach the Civil Court.
6. With the above direction and observations, this writ petition is
disposed of. No costs.
smn
To
1.The Superintendent of Police,
Kanyakumari District.
2.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Padmanabhapuram,
Kanyakumari District.
3.The Inspector of Police,
Nithiravilai Police Station,
Kanyakumari District.