BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 01/03/2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.SASIDHARAN W.P.(MD)No.5944 of 2010 and M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2010 Mrs.Alarmel Valli ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The Superintendent of Police, Dindigul District, Dindigul. 2.The Inspector of Police, Kodaikanal Police Station, Kodaikanal. ... Respondents Prayer Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to grant police protection to the petitioner's property in T.S.Nos.35,36,37, Block No.19, Ward No.C, Property known as Parvathi Hills situated at Mappillai Mudaliar Road, Kodaikanal for construction of compound wall in the property, based on complaint dated 08.11.2009, and consequently directing the respondents to prevent any interference by anybody with the petitioner's property in T.S.Nos.35,36,37, Block No.19, Ward No.C, Property known as Parvathi Hills situated at Mappillai Mudaliar Road, Kodaikanal, where a dance and music school for girls will be run by the petitioner to teach and run a school squarely comes within the ambit of fundamental right and the school is entitled to every protection. !For Petitioner ... Mr.C.Ramakrishna Senior Counsel For Mr.K.Viswanath ^For Respondents ... Mr.S.C.Herold Singh Government Advocate ******** :ORDER
******
PRELIMINARY:
The failure on the part of the respondents to grant necessary police
protection to the petitioner to construct a compound wall to her property
situated at Kodaikanal compelled the petitioner to approach this Court.
BACKGROUND FACTS:
2. The petitioner is a renowned dancer. The Government of India in
recognition of her service awarded her the title “Padmasri and Padmabhusan”
sequentially. The petitioner has been teaching the art of dance both in India
and abroad.
3. The property in T.S.Nos.35,36,37 in Block No.19, Ward No.C,
within the jurisdiction of Kodaikanal Municipality originally belonged to the
grandfather of the petitioner by name Shri.Arunachala Mudaliar. The property
ultimately devolved on the petitioner being the legal heir of her deceased
father Shri.C.Muthukumaraswamy, who died in the year 2002.
4. The petitioner has been in possession and enjoyment of the entire
property measuring about 3. acres.
5. The petitioner made arrangements to run a dance school in the
name and style of “Dipasikha”, as it was her desire to teach dance and music to
the local youngsters, regardless of their family background. Therefore, she
approached the official Surveyor and on payment of prescribed fee, the property
was measured. Accordingly, she commenced fencing.
6. While she was in the process of fencing, certain miscreants
forcibly halted the fencing work and threatened the Supervisor and employees of
the petitioner to stop work. Since the demand was unjustifiable, the petitioner
approached the police to give protection so as to enable her to complete the
work. However, there was no follow-up action at the instance of the police.
Therefore, the petitioner was constrained to file the Writ Petition.
7. Even though sufficient opportunity was granted to the respondents
to file their counter, they have not filed their response.
8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
ANALYSIS:
9. The documents produced by the petitioner clearly indicates her
right, title, interest and possession in respect of the subject property. The
sketch of the property shows that it has got well defined boundaries. The
petitioner has already measured her property through the Town Surveyor. The
certificate issued by the Town Surveyor dated 27.10.2009 shows that the revenue
records stood in the name of her father and it was measured by the officials. In
short, the Town Surveyor certified the possession and enjoyment of the property
by Thiru.C.Muthukumaraswamy, predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner.
10. The petitioner got every right to construct a compound wall to
her property. It was only in exercise of her right to protect her property, she
made arrangements to construct the compound wall. When it was made out that
certain persons with evil intention to grab the property, resisted the attempt,
the petitioner made a complaint before the respondents. However, the police were
too busy with other issues to bother about the legitimate grievance expressed by
a citizen failed to take any kind of action. In short, the grievance of the
petitioner fell on deaf ears.
11. The request of the petitioner was nothing but a legitimate one.
She wanted the police to take action against the miscreants, who were
instrumental in stopping her construction of compound wall. In case the police
fail to take action and to give protection to a law abiding citizen, in the
ultimate analysis, the very society suffers and the criminal gets encouragement.
12. The police have no case that the petitioner has no title,
interest or possession in respect of the subject property. In fact, they have
not conducted any enquiry with regard to the complaint preferred by the
petitioner. The inaction on the part of the police compelled a renowned dancer
to approach this Court.
13. The police power, in fact, is nothing but a duty to the members
of public. Therefore, the police was expected to exercise the powers, when the
jurisdictional facts exists for such exercise. It is said that the discretion
becomes a duty, when the beneficial brings hope the circumstances for its benign
exercise.
14. When people take law into their own hands and prevent the
citizen from enjoying property rights, necessarily the police should come to the
rescue of such law abiding citizen. By giving assistance to a citizen, they are
not doing any charity. It is essentially a service. After all, the respondents
are only Government Servants.
15. Therefore, I am of the view that the matter requires emergent
consideration by the first respondent.
RELIEF:
16. The petitioner is given liberty to make an application before
the first respondent for police protection and in the event of making any such
application, the Superintendent of Police, Dindigul is directed to consider the
same on merits and provide necessary police protection at the expense of the
petitioner forthwith.
17. In the upshot, I allow the Writ Petition. Consequently, the
connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.
CONCLUDING REMARKS:
18. Before I conclude, it is appropriate to quote the following
observation of Mr.Justice V.R.KRISHNA IYER in Ratlam Municipality’s case in
[1980(4) SCC 162]:
“24……………………………………. The pressure of the
judicial process, expensive and dilatory, is neither necessary nor desirable if
responsible bodies are responsive to duties……………………..”
SML
To
1.The Superintendent of Police,
Dindigul District,
Dindigul.
2.The Inspector of Police,
Kodaikanal Police Station,
Kodaikanal.