SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 38580

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
HONOURABLE MRS. L. VICTORIA GOWRI
G.Sridhar – Appellant
Versus
The State of Tamilnadu rep – Respondent



Police must provide protection for construction on revenue-demarcated property after verifying claim under S.64 BNSS.

Headnote:First Paragraph: No specific statutes quoted beyond procedural directions under S.64 BNSS and GO.Ms.No.139. Petitioner owns property in Survey No.37/28, boundary dispute resolved by revenue survey fixing boundaries with stones. Court finds boundaries demarcated, no subsisting dispute, directs police verification. Second Paragraph: Issues framed around interference by adjacent owner despite survey, need for police protection post-representation. Ratio: Revenue demarcation conclusive; police to summon parties under S.64 BNSS, protect if claim genuine on document perusal. Third Paragraph: Writ petition disposed, police directed to provide protection on charge payment.

Table of Content
1. petition seeks police protection for construction post-revenue boundary demarcation. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)

ORDER

This petition has been filed seeing for a direction to the respondents 1 to

3 to provide adequate police protection to the petitioner for putting up construction in his property situated in Survey No.37/28 within the boundaries fixed by the revenue authorities and to ensure protection to the life and limb of the petitioner and his family members, based on the petitioner's representation dated 06.04.2026.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is the absolute owner in possession and enjoyment of the property situated in Survey No. 37/28, located at Vadakattalai Village, Thirunaraiyur, Nachiyarkovil Post, Kumbakonam Taluk, Thanjavur District. The 4th respondent is the owner of the adjacent property comprised in Survey No. 37/3A. A boundary dispute had arisen between the petitioner and the 4th respondent. In order to resolve the same, the petitioner submitted a proper application before the Revenue Department, paid the requisite fees, and requested for measurement of the property. Pursuant thereto, the competent survey authorities conducted a survey, during which the properties were duly measured and survey stones were fixed, thereby clearly demarcating and establishing the boundaries of the petitioner’s property. Hence, as on date, there is no subsisting boundary dispute between the parties, inasmuch as the boundaries of the petitioner’s property have already been duly measured, demarcated, and fixed by the competent revenue authorities, and the survey stones have been duly laid establishing the boundary lines.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submitted that when the petitioner attempted to put up a compound wall within the boundaries of the property, the 4th respondent interfered with the same and criminally intimidated the petitioner with dire consequences. Aggrieved by such unlawful acts, the petitioner submitted a detailed representation dated 06.04.2026 before the respondent police seeking protection; however, no action has been taken thereon. Hence, the petitioner is constrained to file the present writ petition.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top