Madras High Court
S.Inbavalli vs The State Rep. By on 21 June, 2023
Author: M.Nirmal Kumar
Bench: M.Nirmal Kumar
Crl.O.P.No.30946 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 21.06.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR
Crl.O.P.No.30946 of 2022
S.Inbavalli ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The State rep. by,
The Inspector of Police,
Nangavalli Police Station,
Salem District.
2.A.Raji ... Respondents
Prayer : Criminal Original Petition has been filed under Section 482 of
Criminal Procedure Code to direct the first respondent police to provide
necessary police protection to the petitioner for shifting of the electric poles
lying within her property comprised in Old Survey No.1B1, New Survey
No.1B/1D and subdivided Survey No.1B/1D 1A of Virudasampatti Village,
Mettur Taluk, Salem District.
For Petitioner : Mr.T.Saikrishnan
For R1 : Mr.A.Gokulakrishnan
Additional Public Prosecutor
For R2 : Mr.R.Dhanasekar
1/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.30946 of 2022
ORDER
The petitioner seeks police protection for shifting the electric poles lying within her property in Old Survey No.1B1, New Survey No.1B/1D and subdivided Survey No.1B/1D 1A of Virudasampatti Village, Mettur Taluk, Salem District.
2.The contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner is the absolute owner of the land in the above survey numbers in Virudasampatti Village, Mettur Taluk, Salem District to an extent of 25 cents. The petitioner purchased the same through valid sale deed vide Document No.2585/2019. The petitioner's son Suresh Kumar is the absolute owner to an extent of 18½ cents of land comprised in S.No.1B/1C of Virudasampatti Village, Mettur Taluk, Salem District. The petitioner's son purchased the property from the second respondent, his daughter Tmt.R.Saranya, Sons Deepak and Bhuvanesh by way a sale deed vide Document No.4466/2021. The second respondent still owns some other lands adjoining the petitioner's land. Hence the second respondent requested the petitioner to permit him to use 2/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.30946 of 2022 the pathway right over a portion of the petitioner's land comprised to an extent of 6½ cents, pathway right agreement came to be entered into between the petitioner, her son Suresh Kumar and the second respondent on 07.12.2021 in which it was agreed that the petitioner had no objection for the second respondent as well as the petitioner's son to use the pathway. The petitioner has got edible oil mill in the adjoining land owned by her. Since trucks coming to the mill are facing difficulty in approaching the pathway from the main road due to the electric poles standing in the petitioner's land causing obstruction, the petitioner submitted an application with the TANGEDCO authorities, Mettur requesting them to shift the electric poles at the cost of the petitioner. The TANGEDCO authorities conducted a survey and agreed to shift the electric poles causing obstruction in the pathway and directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.54,200/- as shifting charges and the petitioner paid the same on 24.11.2022. Thereafter, when the officials of TANGEDCO came to the site for carrying out the work of shifting the poles on 26.11.2022 the second respondent made objections, due to which the electric poles could not be shifted and the officials left the place. The second respondent has got only a pathway right 3/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.30946 of 2022 and that too, this right has been given by the petitioner. The petitioner is the owner of the property and the second respondent has been now making objections for obvious reasons. Earlier complaint has been lodged by the second respondent in which C.S.R.No.206 of 2022 was assigned by the first respondent but the issue could not be resolved. Hence, for shifting of the electric poles the petitioner approached the Police Officials seeking police protection and for their inaction, the present petition is filed.
3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the second respondent filed a vexatious suit before the District Munsif Court, Mettur in O.S.No.187 of 2022 seeking injunction to prevent installation of electric poles in the property owned by the petitioner which she has got no right except for the pathway right. He would submit that though the second respondent filed I.A.No.2 of 2022, no injunction has been granted. He would further submit that shifting of the electric poles within the petitioner's land would no way affect the pathway right which was given by the petitioner to the second respondent. Further, the learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his contention produced the sale deed of the 4/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.30946 of 2022 petitioner, her son, pathway right agreement entered into between them, demand notice of TANGEDCO, receipt of TANGEDCO confirming the shifting of electric poles, objections shown by the second respondent, petition given by the petitioner to the respondent police seeking police protection and also produced the photographs showing the obstruction.
4.Learned counsel for the second respondent submitted that there is a civil suit already filed by the second respondent which is pending ebfore the District Munsif Court, Mettur. He would submit that it would be appropriate for the petitioner to await the outcome of the civil suit. He would further submit that if the electric poles are permitted to be shifted, the civil suit itself would become infructuous. Learned counsel for the second respondent did not deny the pathway right agreement entered into between the petitioner and the second respondent on 07.12.2021 and his only apprehension is that the petitioner as well as TANGEDCO might place the electric poles in the land of the second respondent as could be seen from paragraph No.2 of the counter affidavit filed by the second respondent, which reads as follows:
5/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.30946 of 2022 “2.The 2nd respondent submits that with regard to the existing Electric Poles are concerned, now they are standing in the land belonging to the petitioner as per the sketch filed by the petitioner before this Hon'ble Court, now the petitioner wanted to shift the said Electric Poles from their land to the land of the 2nd respondent land in an illegal manner and with a view to cause hindrance to the 2nd respondent for his ingress and egress over the common pathway and to peaceful enjoyment of his own land.”
5.Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that shifting of electric poles is within the petitioner's property. The petitioner undertakes not to create any obstruction in the common way, ingress and egress of the second respondent and enjoyment of the pathway. He further submitted that shifting is necessary for easy transportation of materials to the oil mill of the petitioner for which TANGEDCO officials have also agreed.
6.Learned Additional Public Prosecutor filed a status report stating that earlier the second respondent lodged a complaint on 06.09.2022, based on which C.S.R.No.206 of 2022 was assigned and enquiry was conducted. He would submit that the petitioner and the second respondent are adjacent 6/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.30946 of 2022 land owners, there is a common pathway and further there is an oil mill and there have been regular transportation of materials. The only apprehension of the second respondent is that electric poles should not be placed in her land and further, there should not be any obstruction. He further submitted that it is for the petitioner to give such an undertaking and the respondent police shall given necessary protection to the TANGEDCO officials in shifting the electric poles if it is within the petitioner's land causing no obstruction.
7.Considering the submissions made and on perusal of the materials, this Court directs the respondent police to give necessary police protection and to direct the TANGEDCO Officials to shift the electric poles as sought for by the petitioner in the land of the petitioner not affecting the pathway right of ingress and egress to the second respondent. The second respondent's apprehension of pendency of civil suit becoming infructuous is safeguarded by reserving the right of the second respondent that the shifting of the electric poles is subject to the outcome of the civil suit. As on date for the requirement of the petitioner the electric poles shall be shifted in the 7/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.30946 of 2022 petitioner's pathway land. It is made clear that the second respondent has been given only a pathway right in the petitioner's pathway land.
8.With the above direction, the Criminal Original Petition is disposed of.
21.06.2023 Index : Yes/No Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order cse To
1.The Inspector of Police, Nangavalli Police Station, Salem District.
2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
8/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.30946 of 2022 M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.
cse Crl.O.P.No.30946 of 2022 21.06.2023 9/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis