District Magistrate Directed to Resolve Police Protection Request for Lawful Construction Obstructed by Local Residents

The petitioner is the lawful lessee and owner of a 0.05-hectare land parcel (Khasra No. 1403/2) in Village Nagarnaar, allotted by the State in 2001

Despite obtaining approval for residential construction from the Gram Panchayat and securing multiple orders from the Nayab Tehsildar (dated 18/01/2024, 02/12/2024, and 09/12/2024) directing police protection and peaceful possession, certain villagers consistently obstructed his construction work

The petitioner submitted several representations to the Superintendent of Police and the Collector between 2024 and 2026 seeking assistance, but no effective police protection was provided

Consequently, the petitioner moved the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking a direction for police protection to exercise his property rights.

1. Whether the Court should exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 to direct respondent authorities to provide police protection for the petitioner's construction work on his private land.

The Court derived its authority from Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which empowers High Courts to issue directions for the enforcement of fundamental and legal rights

The court applied the principle of administrative responsiveness, holding that when a citizen possesses a lawful title and valid administrative orders (such as those from the Revenue Authority/Nayab Tehsildar), the executive and police machinery are obligated to consider grievances regarding the obstruction of such rights and maintain law and order

The Court examined the petitioner’s documented proof of ownership and the repeated, yet unheeded, directions from the Nayab Tehsildar to the local police (Station House Officer, Nagarnaar) for providing protection

While the State argued that the matter stemmed from a private dispute between villagers and that authorities were monitoring the situation, the Court noted that the petitioner's lawful construction was effectively stalled despite official orders in his favor

It reasoned that the District Magistrate, as the head of district administration, is the appropriate authority to evaluate the "ground realities" and decide on the necessity of police intervention to uphold the petitioner's legal rights

The Magistrate is ordered to afford an opportunity of hearing to all concerned parties and pass a reasoned order within six weeks of receiving the court’s order

The petitioner was granted liberty to place all relevant revenue and police records before the said authority