Heard Mr.J.Saravana Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.P.Govindarajan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the first respondent as well as Mr.M.Guruprasad, learned counsel for the second respondent.
2.The petitioner, who is the owner of the land measuring to an extent of 0.17 cents comprised in Survey No. 87/1A1A in Palavakkam village, Sholinganallur Taluk, apprehends threat of encroachment by third parties and hence, he has given a complaint dated 01.08.2017 to the respondent police, seeking for police protection. Since no action has been taken by the respondent police, the present petition has been filed.
3.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the second respondent herein was the original power agent of the petitioner, which power came to be cancelled on 28.04.1977 itself. He further submitted that the title deeds as well as all revenue documents stands in the name of the petitioner and the report of the Tahsildar also evidences that the petitioner is in possession of the subject property.
4.The learned counsel for the second respondent on the other hand submitted that the second respondent, while acting as a power of attorney of the petitioner had sold various properties to the third parties. The learned counsel further submitted that he is not a mere power of attorney to sell the properties as the power is coupled with interest. Hence, the learned counsel objected to grant the relief as prayed for by the petitioner in the present petition.
5.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the first respondent submitted that the petitioner has earlier approached the respondent police with an application seeking for police protection and if any direction is given by this Court, the same would be complied with.
6.I have given careful consideration to the submissions of the respective counsels.
7.On a perusal of the materials available before this Court, it is seen that the deed of power of attorney dated 17.03.1976 executed by the petitioner in favour of the second respondent came to be cancelled by way of a deed of cancellation deed dated 28.04.1977.
8.Aggrieved against the same, the second respondent had filed a suit in O.S.No.14044 of 2010 seeking for declaration to declare that the deed of power of attorney executed by the defendants is valid and that the cancellation of the deed of power of attorney is invalid. The second respondent had also sought for consequential relief of injunction and the suit property includes the subject property also. The said suit came to be dismissed on 22.01.2016 on its own merits wherein the second respondent's plea for injunction was turned down as well as his main prayer to declare the power deed executed is valid and the cancellation of the said deed is invalid was also rejected. The said Judgment has become final as on date.
9.As pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the revenue documents stands in the name of the petitioner. The patta and the extract of 'A' Register dated 08.08.2017 also evidences the name of the petitioner. Likewise in the report of the Tahsildar dated 08.08.2017 also shows that the petitioner is in physical possession of the subject property. When all the revenue documents, title deeds are in favour of the petitioner, I do not see any impediment, on the part of the respondent police to extend protection to the petitioner's property.
10.Furthermore, I am of the view that there cannot be any prejudice caused to the second respondent if police protection is granted, particularly, when there is sufficient materials to establish the petitioner's title and possession.
11.In the view of the foregoing reasons, this Court grants liberty to the petitioner to approach the first respondent and make a representation seeking for police protection to his property. On receipt of such a representation, the first respondent shall forthwith extend adequate police protection to safeguard the petitioner's aforesaid property. Such exercise shall be carried out within a day's time from the date of the representation.
12.With the above direction, the Criminal Original Petition stands allowed.
13.09.2017 Index:Yes/No Internet: Yes/No nl/dp M.S.RAMESH.J, nl/dp Crl.O.P.No.16277 of 2017 13.09.2017