1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 16.11.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.PERIYA KARUPPIAH Crl.O.P.(MD)No.14729 of 2011 1.Veerachinnu 2.P.Ponnammal 3.D.Gnanaprakasam 4.C.Ganesan 5.T.Rukkumani 6.S.Veerachamy 7.J.Boomadevi 8.M.Kavitha 9.M.Pothumani 10.S.Pappa 11.A.Kannan 12.A.Krishnasamy 13.M.Eswari 14.Muthuraj 15.M.Vijaya 16.R.Rajeswari 17.P.Subbammal 18.M.Mariappan 19.V.Leela 20.P.Jeyaraman 21.M.Rajendran 22.M.Selvaraj 23.K.Karupiah 24.P.Prakasham 25.A.Murugan 26.S.Chandra 27.Palanichamy 28.Revathy ... Petitioners Vs. 1.The Superintendent of Police, Theni. 2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Allinagaram,Theni District. 3.The Inspector of Police, Allinagaram,Theni District. 4.Karupiah Devar ... Respondents (R4 impleaded as per orders dated 14.11.2011) Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to direct the 2nd respondent to provide police protection during the process of surveying and demarcating the land in survey Nos.219/1E1,291/1E2, 219/1E3 and 219/2C in Oochampatti village, Theni District. For Petitioner :: Ms.A.Rajini For Respondents :: Mr.P.Kannaithevan,Govt. Advocate (Crl.side) for RR1 to RR3 No appearance for R4 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 O R D E R This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to direct the 2nd respondent to provide police protection during the process of surveying and demarcating the land in survey Nos.219/1E1, 291/1E2, 219/1E3 and 219/C in Oochampatti village, Theni District. 2. Heard Ms.A.Rajini, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.P.Kannaithevan, learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) appearing for the State/respondents 1 to 3. No appearance or representation for R4, despite his name is printed in the cause list. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit in her argument that the petitioners bought and owned the lands bearing survey Nos. 219/1E1, 291/1E2, 219/1E3 and 219/C in Oochampatti village and the 4th respondent fraudulently surveyed and demarcated the land already sold and the 4th respondent along with his agents, is trying to prevent the petitioners from taking possession of the said property. She would further submit that the 4th respondent filed writ petitions in W.P.(MD) Nos.9403 of 2011 to give notice to him before measuring and demarcating the petitioners land as per the direction of this Court made in W.P.(MD) No.4770 of 2011, but, with the malafide intention to misappropriate the said land, the 4th respondent is preventing the process of surveying and demarcating the lands by the petitioners and hence, the petitioners sent representations to the respondents 1 to 3 to provide police protection during the process of measuring and demarcating the said land and since the same has not been considered so far, they have come forward with the present application. 4. The learned Government Advocate (criminal side) would submit that suitable orders may be passed and the respondents 1 to 3 would obey the orders of the Court and the petitioners may be directed to give fresh representation for such police protection. 5. Considering the submissions made on either side, I could find that after a series of writ petitions filed by both the parties, this Court in W.P.(MD) No.9403 of 2011 has passed orders on 03.11.2011, which would run as follows: "Accordingly, the writ petition is dispose of, directing the first respondent, first to call upon the petitioner as well as the 3rd respondent and others, to appear for an enquiry, on a date fixed and notified sufficiently in advance directing them to produce the documents on which they rely upon. After scrutinizing the documents produced by both sides and after affording an opportunity to both, the respondent shall take a decision whether to survey the land and demarcate the area or not. Till a decision is taken by him, the Tahsildar has no business to inspect the property and measure the land. Though, a complaint was made that the Tahsildar acted with scant respect to this Court, despite the intimation passed on to him by the learned Government Advocate, I am not now taking note of the same, in the hope that as a person, who is discharging public duties the first respondent will act in a fair and proper manner and that he would not give room https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 for any complaint. It is also made clear that the survey, if any, done so far shall not carry any weight. The writ petition is disposed of with the above directions. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are also closed." 6.No doubt the said order shall bind both parties to the writ petition. The Tahsildar, Theni has to comply with the directions made therein. According to the said order, the survey of the disputed lands has to be opted, if he finds it necessary after holding an enquiry. The decision to have a survey and measuring of the disputed land, depends on the enquiry to be held by the Tahsildar, Theni. 7.In the event of the Tahsildar, Theni decides to survey and measure the lands, as per the orders of this Court, made in W.P.NO.9403 of 2011 dated 03.11.2011, the respondents 1 to 3 are necessarily to be directed to provide police protection during the process of surveying and demarcating the lands in S.No.219/1E1, 291/1E2, 219/1E3 and 219/C in Oochampatti Village, Theni District, on the representation given by the petitioners. 8.In view of the aforesaid discussions held by me, I am of the considered view that the respondents 1 to 3 are directed to provide police protection during the process of surveying and demarcating the lands in S.Nos. 219/1E1, 291/1E2, 219/1E3 and 219/C, in Oochampatti Village, Theni District as asked for by the petitioners, on a fresh representation to be given by them to the respondents 1 to 3. 9.With the aforesaid observation, this petition is ordered. SD ASST REGISTRAR(T&P) /TRUE COPY/ SUB ASSISTANT REGISTRAR arul To 1.The Superintendent of Police, Theni. 2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Allinagaram, Theni District. 3.The Inspector of Police, Allinagaram,Theni District. 4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. SB:29/11/2011 3P 5C Crl.O.P.(MD)No.14729 of 2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/