VoxJuris
Home › High Courts › Madras High Court 2026 › High Court of Madras

S.Sakthivel v. The Superintendent of Police,

DISPOSED OF
Court
High Court of Madras
Decided
21 April 2026
Bench
M. Nirmal Kumarauthor
Case no.
WP Crl. 908/2026

Judgment

ORDER The Writ Petition has been filed seeking a direction to the 2nd Respondent to provide police protection to enable the petitioner to restore electricity service connection in Consumer No.04022003319 and draw water from Survey Nos.79/1 and 79/2 to irrigate the petitioners land in Survey No.79/5 at Puthur Pudupalayam Village, Perundurai Taluk, Erode District in terms of the RDOs order dated 28.10.2024.

2.The contention of the learned counsel for petitioner is that the petitioner is the absolute owner of agricultural land in S.No.79/5 situated at Puthur Pudupalayam Village to an extent of 70 cents. The property was allotted to him through a registered partition and Patta No.164 stands in the petitioner's name. The Adangal and other revenue records also reflects the petitioner's ownership. The petitioner has been cultivating coconut trees and drawing water from the common well situated in S.No.79/1. The petitioner has been drawing water and cultivating his land. However, during April, 2024 the third respondent unlawfully obstructed the petitioner irrigating his land by preventing drawing of Page3 of 6 water through pipeline from S.Nos.79/1 and 79/2. The petitioner approached the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO), Erode. After enquiry, the Revenue Divisional Officer passed an order dated 28.10.2024 in Na.Ka.No.2371/2024/A1 confirming that the petitioner has got all the rights to draw water from the common Well through the pipeline and restrained others from causing obstruction. This RDO order has been appealed to the District Revenue Officer (DRO), who confirmed the RDO order, hence, the petitioner's right to draw water from S.No.79/1 and 79/2 to irrigate petitioner's land in S.No.79/5 has been approved. This being so, the third respondent and others have been unnecessarily obstructing the petitioner. The third respondent is the relative of the petitioner, who is owning adjacent part of the land. Though the petitioner's complaint received and CSR assigned, no police protection given and the obstructors in embolden causing disturbance to the petitioner's cultivation.

3.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that on the complaint of the petitioner, enquiry conducted by the respondent police and finding that there is some damage caused to the wall of the Well and some soil collapsed into the well, hence, drawing of water is obstructed. Further there is a civil suit filed in O.S.No.100 of 2025 by the third respondent. In view of the same, the police advised the petitioner, third respondent and others to approach the civil Court. Page4 of 6

4.Considering the submissions made and on perusal of the materials, it is seen that as on date, the RDO order is stands in favour of the petitioner. Unless there is any orders obtained in O.S.No.100 of 2025 or any other civil Court or from the competent authority, the third respondent or any other party not to obstruct the petitioner drawing water for his land. In such case, the respondent police are duty bound to ensure the petitioner to continue with his agricultural activities without any stoppage of water.

5.With the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. 21-04-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order RSI Page5 of 6 To

¶1The Superintendent of Police, Erode - 638 001. Erode District.

¶2The Inspector of Police, Perundurai Police Station, Perundurai - 638 052, Erode District.

¶3The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras. WPoCrl.oNo.o908oofo2026 M.NIRMALoKUMAR,oJ. RSI WPoCrl.oNo.o908oofo2026 and W.P.M.P.Crl.No.300oofo2026 21-04-2026 Page6oofo6

Case details

Parties and counsel

Page1 of 6 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 21-04-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M. NIRMAL KUMAR and W.P.M.P.Crl.No.300 of 2026 S.Sakthivel S/o. C.Subramanian, No.11, Chathiram Pudur, Thottanichathiram, Pitchandampalayam Post, Perundurai Taluk, Erode District - 638 052. ..Petitioner(s) Vs 1. The Superintendent of Police, Erode - 638 001. Erode District. 2. The Inspector of Police, Perundurai Police Station, Perundurai - 638 052, Erode District. 3. Rajendran S/o. Subramaniam, Door No.3/54-1, Athikadu, Chathiram Pudur, Puthur Pudupalayam Village, Kathirampatti Post, Erode Taluk, Erode District - 638 112. ..Respondent(s) Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 2nd Respondent to provide police protection to enable the petitioner to restore electricity service connection in Page2 of 6 Consumer No.04022003319 and draw water from Survey Nos.79/1 and 79/2 to irrigate the petitioners land in Survey No.79/5 at Puthur Pudupalayam Village, Perundurai Taluk, Erode District in terms of the RDOs order dated 28.10.2024. For Petitioner(s): Mr.N.Senthilkumar For Respondents- 1 & 2: Mr.Leonard Arul Joseph Selvam, Additional Public Prosecutor

Source: High Court of Madras, through the eCourts High Court services, via the Indian High Court Judgments open dataset by Dattam Labs (CC BY 4.0). Text was extracted from the official PDF and may contain conversion errors. Check the official PDF before relying on it.