The petitioner has come up with the present petition seeking a direction to the 3rd respondent to provide police protection based on the complaint dated 07.01.2017.
2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is the absolute owner of the land ad-measuring 30½ cents in Survery No.875/1 and 29½ cents in Survey No.875/2A situated at No.1, Lotus Colony, M.R.H.Road, Madhavaram through a registered sale deed dated 16.03.1990 on the file of the office of Sub-Registrar, Sembium and he is in possession of all the revenue records viz.,Patta, Tax receipt etc. pertaining to the land in question. While so, the 4th respondent herein with an intention to grab the said land threatened the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner lodged a complaint against the 4th respondent before the 2nd respondent police. Though the said complaint was received vide CSR.No.225 of 2016, no action was taken, which compelled the petitioner to file Crl.O.P.No.20111 of 2016 before this Court. By an order dated 08.09.2016, this Court directed the petitioner to submit a fresh complaint to the respondents 2 & 3, who on receipt of the same, should conduct enquiry. In the meantime, the fourth respondent has approached the Special Tahsildar, Urban Land Tax Scheme, Madharavam with a request to grant Patta in his favour. The Special Tahsildar has called both the parties for enquiry. Doubting the manner in which the enquiry was conducted, the petitioner has filed a petition in W.M.P.No.28761 of 2016 in W.P.No.33289 of 2016 and obtained an order of stay of all further proceedings in Na.Ka.No.25/2016/A1 dated 14.09.2016 passed by the Special Tahsildar, Madhavaram. Subsequently, the 4th respondent made a complaint with an intention to grab the petitioner's property, since no action has been taken on the said complaint, the 4th respondent threatened the petitioner with dire consequences. Hence, this petition.
3. Despite service of notice and the name of the 4th respondent having been printed in the cause list, there is no representation for the 4th respondent either in person or through learned counsel.
4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on instructions, submitted that the land claimed by the petitioner is a disputed land. According to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the petitioner is in possession of the land in question.
5. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the submission made by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, this Court is of the view that as and when R.MAHADEVAN., J jv/av the situation arises the petitioner can very well approach the respondent police with a representation seeking police protection and on such representation, the respondents shall consider the same and provide adequate protection to the petitioner.
6. The Criminal Original Petition is disposed of accordingly.
23.06.2017 Index: Yes/No speaking order/Non speaking order jv/av To
1. The Deputy Commissioner of Police, Madhavaram Police Station, Madhavaram, Chennai.
2. The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Madhavaram Police Station, Madhavaram, Chennai.
3. The Inspection of Police, Madhavaram Police Station, Madhavaram, Chennai.
4. The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras.
Crl.O.P.No.1062 of 2017