IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 29.06.2017 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.MAHADEVAN W.P.No.16250 of 2017 and WMP.No.17588 of 2017 R.Alameluammal ... Petitioner Vs
1. The State of Tamil Nadu rep. by the Commissioner of Police, Chennai Sub Urban Police, St. Thomas Mount, Chennai – 600 016.
2. The Assistant Commissioner of Police, St. Thomas Mount, Chennai – 600 016.
3. The Inspector of Police S-7, Madipakkam Police Station, Keelkatalai, Chennai – 600 117.
4. M.Muthukrishnan ... Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 and 2 herein to give appropriate and necessary police protection to the petitioner's property pursuant to the decree passed in O.S.No.1459/1997 on 12.01.2016 on the file of the District Munsif, Alandur.
For Petitioner : Mr.J.Selvarajan For R1 to R3 : Mr.D.Vairamoorthy, SGP ORDER The Writ Petition has been filed to issue a writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 and 2 herein to give police protection to the petitioner's property pursuant to the decree passed in O.S.No.1459/1997 dated 12.01.2016 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Alandur.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that she is the second wife of one Radhakrishnan. After the death of her husband, the petitioner and the first wife of his husband by name Meenakshi Ammal were residing jointly and enjoying the properties of their husband. While so, dispute arose at the instigation of the fourth respondent, who is the foster son of the said Meenakshi Ammal, which compelled the petitioner to file a suit in O.S.No.1459 of 1997 before the Principal District Munsif Court, Alandur for permanent injunction. The said Meenakshi Ammal and the fourth respondent also filed a suit in O.S.No.1108/1997 before the District Munsif Court, Alandur. After due contest, O.S.No.1459 of 1997 was decreed in favour of the petitioner herein and O.S.No.1108 of 1997 was dismissed, by judgment and decree dated 08.03.2006, against which, A.S.Nos.51 of 2006 and 40 of 2006 were filed by the fourth respondent. Subsequently, the same were transferred to the file of the Sub Court, Tambaram and renumbered as A.S.Nos.80 and 81 of 2009, which were by judgment dated 30.09.2011, remanded back to the trial court for fresh consideration. Thereafter, both the suits were once again tried and the same were decided in favour of the petitioner herein, by judgment and decree dated 12.01.2016. Despite the civil court decree granting permanent injunction in favour of the petitioner herein, the fourth respondent has trespassed into the property of the petitioner and tried to construct permanent structure in the same. Hence, the petitioner preferred several complaints to the respondents 1 to 3 to take action against the fourth respondent. However, till date, no action has been taken on the said complaints. Hence, this petition.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that even after obtaining a civil court decree in favour of the petitioner, the fourth respondent has attempted to dispossess the petitioner from the property in question and tried to construct the building. Hence, on the strength of the civil court decree, she requested the respondent police to give police protection for peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property in question. Learned counsel further submitted that in identical situation, this Court, in the case of Radhika Sri Hari and another v. Commissioner of Police reported in 2014 (2) CTC 695, has held that the petitioner in that case would be entitled to police protection as prayer for. Thus, the learned counsel sought for similar direction in this petition also.
4. On the above submissions, I have heard the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 and perused the entire materials available on record.
5. In the decision reported in 2014 (2) CTC 695 - Radhika Sri Hari and another v. Commissioner of Police, in paras 7 and 8, this Court has held as follows:-
“7. In the aforesaid circumstances, this court considers it appropriate to refer to report of the committee constituted by the Government in G.O.(3D) No.42, Home dated 30.06.2008 towards review of the system of treating complaints relating to money and land matters and to suggest a legally acceptable methodology. The report of such committee touching upon several issues, was accepted by Government. Having done so, under G.O.Ms.No.1580 Home (POL.VII) Department dated 24.11.2008, the Director General of Police was required to circulate the report along with the 14 point guidelines annexed to such Government order to police officers/stations for appropriate adherence. Under C.No.43/CRB/CSP/2008 dated 08.12.2008, the Commissioner of Police, Chennai Sub-Urban, has caused communications to all Deputy Commissioners, Assistant Commissioners and Inspector of police for necessary action. Guideline 11 issued by the committee reads as follows:
"11. When police protection is sought for the implementation of a civil court order it should be given readily. Police should not insist on a specific court direction to give police protection."
8. What is informed above makes clear that the petitioner would be entitled to police protection as prayed for. Criminal original petition is allowed. There will be a direction to respondents to provide police protection to the petitioners for a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order towards enabling them raising fresh barbed wire fences on their property. The same will be at the cost of the petitioner. “ Hence, as per the Guideline 11 issued by the committee constituted by the Government in G.O.(3D) No.42, Home dated 30.6.2008, when police protection is sought for, for the implementation of a civil court order, it should be given readily. In the instant case also, the petitioner has obtained a decree of permanent injunction in her favour from the competent civil Court and the same is now in force. Hence, based on the said decree, the petitioner is entitled to get police protection.
6. In the result, the writ petition is allowed and the respondent police is directed to provide adequate police protection to the petitioner as and when required, for the purpose of her peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property in question. However, the same will be at the cost of the petitioner. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
29.06.2017 Index:Yes/No rk To
1. The Commissioner of Police, Chennai Sub Urban Police, St. Thomas Mount, Chennai – 600 016.
2. The Assistant Commissioner of Police, St. Thomas Mount, Chennai – 600 016.
3. The Inspector of Police S-7, Madipakkam Police Station, Keelkatalai, Chennai – 600 117.
R.MAHADEVAN, J.
rk W.P.No.16250 of 2017 DATED: 29.06.2017