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) 48865

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
G.K. Ilandhiraiyan, J
Karthikeyan C – Appellant
Versus
Commissioner of Police – Respondent
WP Crl. No. 1056 of 2026



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: D. Shanmugaraja Sethupathi
For the Respondents: R. Ganesh Kumar

Police protection for property demolition cannot be granted as a substitute for civil eviction proceedings where a third party is in legal or physical possession of the premises.

Headnote:The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, requesting police protection to demolish a property despite a third party residing therein. The Court observed that the petitioner had allowed the third respondent to occupy the property post-purchase and that the dispute remains civil in nature. The Court held that demolition cannot be carried out while a occupant is in possession without following due process of law. The main issues addressed were whether police protection can be granted for the demolition of property occupied by a third party when the dispute is essentially civil. The Court reasoned that the petitioner must first seek eviction through appropriate civil fora rather than bypassing the legal process via an application for police assistance. The writ petition is dismissed as it is found to be devoid of merits.

Table of Content
1. factual background regarding property purchase and illegal occupation. (Para 1 , 2)
2. police protection cannot replace civil legal processes for eviction. (Para 3 , 4 , 5)

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 and 2, particularly the jurisdictional police authorities, to provide adequate and effective police protection to the petitioner for the purpose of carrying out the demolition of the building in accordance with the Demolition Order Na.Ka.No.2700/2026/H.1 (Va) dated 10-4-2026 issued by the Coimbatore City Municipal Corporation, based on the petitioners representation dated 15-4-2026, and consequently ensure that the said demolition is carried out peacefully and without any obstruction or interference from the respondents or any third parties.

ORDER

The Writ Petition has been filed seeking for a direction, directing the respondents 1 and 2 to provide adequate police protection to the petitioner for the purpose of carrying out demolition of the building owned by him as per the order dated 10.04.2026, issued by the Coimbatore City Municipal Corporation.

2.The petitioner had purchased the house property by the registered sale deed dated 15.11.2024, registered as Document No.12089 of 2024. Thereafter, the petitioner himself allowed the 3rd respondent to stay in the house property. Though, the petitioner paid the entire sale consideration, the 3rd respondent fails to vacate the premises and attempted to extract more money from the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner lodged a complaint before the 1st and 2nd respondent to take appropriate action as against the illegal occupation of the 3rd respondent. On the other hand, the petitioner also obtained permission from the authority concerned to demolish the entire house property. The petitioner was also permitted to demolish the house property on certain conditions. After obtaining the order from the concerned authority, the petitioner once again lodged a complaint seeking police protection to the petitioner while demolishing the house.

3.Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per the conditions imposed by the Coimbatore City Municipal Corporation, the petitioner necessarily ought to have obtained permission from the police before demolition of the house property.

4.Admittedly, the petitioner had purchased the house property from the 3rd respondent and other legal heirs of the original owner of the house property. The petitioner himself permitted the 3rd respondent to stay in the house property. Now, the 3rd respondent has occupied the subject premises. Therefore, without evicting the 3rd respondent in accordance with law, the demolition cannot be done in the house property. Hence, instead of approaching the Civil Court for appropriate relief, the petitioner simply asked for police protection to the petitioner for demolishing the house property. However, the directions sought for in the Writ Petition cannot be granted.

5.This writ Petition is devoid of merits and accordingly stands dismissed.

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