Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Durgasi Kesava Rao vs State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 12 July, 2022
1
CMR, J.
W.P.No.19508 of 2022
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY
Writ Petition No.19508 of 2022
ORDER:
This Writ Petition for a mandamus is filed to declare the
inaction of respondents 3 and 4 police officials in providing
police aid to the petitioners for effective implementation of the
judgment and decree, dated 28.03.2016, passed in O.S.No.17 of
2010 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge Court, Palakonda, as
illegal and consequently, sought direction to the respondents 3
and 4 to provide police aid to the petitioners for implementation
of the said mandatory injunction and permanent injunction
decree.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned
Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for
respondents 1, 3 and 4 and learned Government Pleader for
School Education appearing for respondents 2, 5 to 8.
3. The petitioners 2 to 4 are the plaintiffs in O.S.No.17 of
2010 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge Court, Palakonda. The
said Suit was filed for a decree of mandatory injunction and for
permanent injunction against respondents 7 and 8 herein, who
are the defendants 1 and 2 in the said Suit. The 3rd defendant
in the said Suit is the State represented by the District Collector.
The said Suit was decreed in favour of the petitioners 2 to 4
herein as per decree, dated 28.03.2016. Thus, respondents 7
and 8 herein are restrained by way of permanent injunction
from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of
CMR, J.
W.P.No.19508 of 2022
the petitioners in respect of the property, which is the subject
matter of the said Suit. After the Suit was decreed, the
compound wall was also demolished as per the orders passed in
E.P.No.1 of 2019 in execution of decree passed for mandatory
injunction in the said Suit.
4. Now, the grievance of the writ petitioners is that inspite of
a decree for permanent injunction that was passed in the above
Suit that the respondents 5 to 8 herein have been interfering
with their possession in respect of the said property and as
such, they have made a written representation to the respondent
3 and 4 police officials for providing police aid for effective
implementation of the said permanent injunction decree and
that they are not providing any police aid to implement the said
decree. Therefore, the petitioners are before this Court by way of
filing the instant Writ Petition seeking the aforesaid relief.
5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing
for respondents 1, 3 and 4 would submit that as it is a civil
dispute pertaining to a civil litigation initiated in a civil Court,
that the police, normally, would not interfere in such civil
dispute and he would submit that they will provide police aid to
the petitioners if a direction to that effect is given either by the
civil Court, which passed the said decree, or by this Court.
6. Learned Government Pleader for School Education
appearing for respondents 2, 5 to 8 would submit that one
person by name Balaga Sujatha filed W.P.No.9709 of 2022
CMR, J.
W.P.No.19508 of 2022
against the petitioners 2 to 4 herein, and as the said Writ
Petition was filed that respondents 5 to 8 have only removed the
encroachments in the said property and that they did not
interfere with the permanent injunction decree.
7. To a pointed question, learned Government Pleader for
School Education would submit that no order was passed in the
said Writ Petition by this Court directing respondents 5 to 8 to
remove the encroachments. Therefore, when there is no such
direction or order from this Court, respondents 5 to 8 have no
business to interfere with the possession of the petitioners in
respect of the said property, violating the said permanent
injunction decree and to remove the encroachments. It clearly
amounts to gross violation of the permanent injunction decree
by respondents 5 to 8. In fact, they are liable for contempt also
for deliberately violating the permanent injunction decree under
the guise of filing a Writ Petition by some third party. More
particularly, when there is no order or direction from this Court
to remove any such encroachments, it clearly amounts to willful
disobedience of the decree passed for permanent injunction.
Therefore, respondents 5 to 8 are not justified in interfering with
the possession of the petitioners in respect of the property in
question by violating the permanent injunction decree passed by
a competent civil Court.
8. Therefore, in the said facts and circumstances of the case,
the Writ Petition is allowed directing the respondents 3 and 4 to
provide police aid/protection to the petitioners for effective
CMR, J.
W.P.No.19508 of 2022
implementation of the permanent injunction decree passed in
favour of the petitioners, dated 28.03.2016, in O.S.No.17 of
2010 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge Court, Palakonda. The
petitioners are at liberty to initiated appropriate contempt
proceedings for violating the decree of competent civil Court by
respondents 5 to 8, if they so desire. No costs.
Consequently, miscellaneous applications, pending if any,
shall also stand closed.
________________________________________________
JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY
Date:12.07.2022.
cs
