Police protection cannot establish disputed property rights or unilaterally alter the existing state of affairs.

The petitioner and the fourth respondent disputed rights over land in Survey No. 237/1A, including an alleged pathway at Thethupatti village.

After an earlier order directing a survey of several survey numbers, the petitioner alleged that the survey was conducted without notice and stated that his statutory appeal against it was pending; a writ appeal concerning the earlier order was also pending

The petitioner further alleged that the fourth respondent was attempting to fence the land and obstruct the pathway, and that the police might provide assistance.

After submitting representations to the police authorities, he sought a direction against such police protection.

The Court noted that civil proceedings concerning the properties were pending.

The Court did not cite a specific statutory provision or precedent.

It applied the principle that disputes concerning title, possession, boundaries, and rights of access are matters for determination by the competent civil court.

It also held that police protection should not be used to enable a party to establish a disputed property right or unilaterally alter the existing state of affairs, while preserving the police’s statutory duties and their obligation to comply with specific orders of a competent court.

The parties’ competing claims over the property and pathway raised questions of title, possession, boundaries, and access, which the Court considered unsuitable for determination in the writ petition and appropriate for the civil court.

However, given the pending civil proceedings and the allegation that the pathway was at risk of obstruction, the Court directed the authorities to consider the petitioner’s representation, taking those matters into account.

It also restrained the police from facilitating either party’s unilateral assertion of disputed rights, without preventing lawful police action or compliance with a court order.

Respondents 1 and 2 were directed to consider the petitioner’s representation dated 5 October 2026 in light of the pending civil proceedings and the nature of the dispute, and to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.

The third respondent was directed not to provide police protection to enable either party to establish a disputed right or alter the existing state of affairs on a unilateral claim, subject to the police’s statutory duties and any specific order of a competent court.

Neither party was to take the law into their own hands, and the pending appeals were to be decided independently.