A civil land dispute and disputed threat allegations do not warrant police protection without sufficient supporting material.

The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus under Article 226 for police protection for himself, his family, and agricultural land.

He alleged that his brothers had occupied the land after their father’s death, that a dispute over the land had led to harassment and assaults, and that he had sought protection from the police authorities

The State opposed the petition, stating that the dispute was civil in nature and that the alleged assaults had not been reported or found to have occurred

Whether the petitioner had shown sufficient material to warrant a direction under Article 226 for police protection

Whether the petitioner’s allegations of threats and assault, disputed by the State, justified the requested relief in the context of a land dispute

The Court considered its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 and whether the material before it justified directing the authorities to provide police protection

It stated that a person apprehending a threat to life or personal liberty, or against whom a cognizable offence is committed, may approach the competent authority in accordance with law

The Court found that the underlying dispute concerned agricultural land and the parties’ rights in it, and therefore appeared primarily civil in nature

The State specifically disputed the allegations of threat and assault, and the Court found insufficient material on the record to justify ordering police protection

It left open the petitioner’s right to approach the competent authority if a threat or cognizable offence arose

It made no order as to costs and clarified that the petitioner could approach the competent authority in accordance with law if necessary