Telangana High Court

Karim Nawaz Alladin vs The State Of Telangana And 5 Others on 13 May, 2021

Bench: A.Abhishek Reddy

           THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.ABHISHEK REDDY

                   WRIT PETITION No.12382 of 2021
ORDER:

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned

Government Pleader for Home for all the respondents. With their

consent, the writ petition is disposed of at the stage of admission

itself.

Aggrieved by the inaction of the respondent Nos.3 to 6 in

providing police protection to the petitioner for implementation of

the orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as the interim

orders passed by the Civil Courts in respect of the land in survey

No.613 admeasuring Acs.224.04 guntas situated at Nadergul

Village, Balapur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, the present writ

petition is filed.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that initially

O.S.No.155 of 2005 was filed by the vendors of the petitioner

against the Government and the Revenue Department. The said

suit was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 30.04.2007, by

the Principal District Judge, Ranga Reddy District. As against the

same, the plaintiffs/vendors of the petitioner have preferred a First

Appeal and the same was allowed by this Hon'ble Court vide

judgment and decree dated 19.12.2011 passed in A.S. No.274 of

2007. Learned counsel has further stated that though the matter

was carried by the Government and the Revenue Department to

Hon'ble Supreme Court, the said appeals were dismissed by the

Hon'ble Supreme Court vide judgment dated 09.10.2015, passed in

Civil Appeal Nos.2963 and 2964 of 2013, confirming the judgment 2 AAR,J W.P.No.12382 of 2021

and decree passed by the Hon'ble High Court in A.S.No.274 of

2007. Subsequently, when some third parties, who were already

parties before the Hon'ble High Court in A.S.No.274 of 2007, tried

to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the vendors of

the petitioner, they have filed civil suits before the Civil Courts and

the same were numbered as O.S.No.292 of 2020 on the file of the

II Additional District & Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy at

L.B. Nagar, and O.S.No.165 of 2021 on the file of the IX Senior

Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar. That vide order

dated 12.11.2020 passed in I.A.No.178 of 2020 in O.S.No.292 of

2020, the II Additional District & Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy at

L.B. Nagar, granted temporary injunction in respect of the plaint

schedule property admeasuring Acs.93.15 guntas and in survey

No.613 of Nadergul Village, Saroornagar Mandal (now Balapur

Mandal), Ranga Reddy District. Further, vide order dated

16.02.2021 passed in I.A. No.87 of 2021 in O.S.No.165 of 2021,

the IX Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar,

granted status quo order in respect of the land admeasuring

Acs.37-14 guntas and Acs.93-15 guntas in survey No.613 of

Nadergul Village, Saroornagar Mandal (now Balapur Mandal),

Ranga Reddy District. Learned counsel contends that in spite of

the declaration of title of the vendor of the petitioner by the Hon'ble

High Court as well as the Hon'ble Supreme Court and also the

interim orders of injunction granted by the competent Civil Courts,

the defendants in the said suit tried to interfere with the peaceful

possession of the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner was constrained

to approach the respondent Nos.3 to 6 seeking police protection by

way of representation. However, the respondent No.3 vide order, 3 AAR,J W.P.No.12382 of 2021

dated 09.04.2021 (signed on 15.04.2021), while holding that the

petitioner is having prima facie evidence to show that he is owner

of the subject land as per the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme

Court and also the registered agreement of sale-cum-GPA

documents, for reasons best known to him, had directed the

petitioner to approach the Court for providing necessary police

protection to implement the interim orders granted in I.A.No.178 of

2020 in O.S.No.292 of 2020, by the II Additional District &

Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy at L.B. Nagar, and order dated

16.02.2021 passed in I.A. No.87 of 2021 in O.S.No.165 of 2021, by

the IX Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar.

Hence, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking police

protection for implementation of the orders passed by the Civil

Courts.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that this

Hon'ble Court as well as the Hon'ble Supreme Court in catena of

cases have held that the police officials are duty bound to give

necessary protection wherever injunction orders are granted by the

Courts and to see that the injunction orders are not violated and

the order of this Court are implemented in strict sense of law.

Learned Government Pleader while conceding that the

petitioner is having prima facie title in his favour in view of the

judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Hon'ble High Court

and as well as the interim orders granted by the Civil Court, but

has stated that in the absence of any direction from the competent

Civil Court directing the official respondents to grant police

protection, the official respondents can not provide Police aid.

                                    4                                 AAR,J
                                                       W.P.No.12382 of 2021

That, in case, the Civil Court passes any order directing the official

respondents to grant police protection to implement the orders of

the Civil Court, the authorities will do so.

Heard both sides and perused the record.

A perusal of the documents filed by the petitioner shows that

this Court vide judgment and decree dated 19.12.2011 passed in

A.S. No.274 of 2007 has declared that the vendors of the petitioner

are the owners of the subject land. The Hon'ble Supreme Court

vide judgment dated 09.10.2015, passed in Civil Appeal Nos.2963

and 2964 of 2013, has confirmed the judgment and decree passed

by the Hon'ble Court in A.S.No.274 of 2007. Thereafter, the

vendors of the petitioner have approached the Civil Courts seeking

injunction to protect their possession, the Civil Courts i.e. the

II Additional District & Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy at L.B.

Nagar, vide order 12.11.2020 passed in I.A.No.178 of 2020 in

O.S.No.292 of 2020, and the IX Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy

District at L.B. Nagar, vide order dated 16.02.2021 in I.A. No.87 of

2021 in O.S.No.165 of 2021, have granted interim orders in favour

of the vendors of the petitioner. This Court as well as the Hon'ble

Supreme Court on number occasions have held that the official

respondents are bound to implement the orders of this Court and

the orders of injunction passed by the competent Civil Courts,. A

reading of the order, dated 09.04.2021, passed by the respondent

No.3 shows that while the respondent No.3 has accepted that the

vendors of the petitioner are the owners of the subject lands, has

advised the petitioner to get necessary orders from the competent

Court for implementation of the injunction order dated 12.11.2020 5 AAR,J W.P.No.12382 of 2021

passed in I.A.No.178 of 2020 in O.S.No.292 of 2020, by the II

Additional District & Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy at L.B. Nagar,

and order dated 16.02.2021 passed in I.A. No.87 of 2021 in

O.S.No.165 of 2021, by the IX Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy

District at L.B. Nagar.

As seen from the record, the order passed by the Hon'ble

Supreme Court has attained finality. As long as the order dated

12.11.2020 passed in I.A.No.178 of 2020 in O.S.No.292 of 2020,

by the II Additional District & Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy at

L.B. Nagar, and order dated 16.02.2021 passed in I.A. No.87 of

2021 in O.S.No.165 of 2021, by the IX Senior Civil Judge, Ranga

Reddy District at L.B. Nagar, are subsisting, the official

respondents are duty bound to implement the same in true letter

and spirit.

The learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied on a

decision reported in Satyanarayana Tiwari v. S.H.O. P.S.

Santhoshnagar, Hyderabad1, and a Division Bench of this Court

has held as under:

"It is the duty of all the authorities in the State to see that the orders of the Civil Court and that of the High Court are not only enforced faithfully but all persons seeking enforcement of such orders are given full held and protection in furtherance thereof.

...................

.....................

......................

We have, therefore, no hesitation in concluding that this Court has ample jurisdiction to issue a writ or direction to all the authorities including the police within the State to enforce the

1982 (2) APLJ (HC) 163 6 AAR,J W.P.No.12382 of 2021

orders of the civil Court as confirmed by the High Court in a Civil Revision Petition and maintain the Rule of law. The police authorities are therefore bound to give all assistance to the appellant to enforce and see that the orders of this Court as confirmed in C.R.P.No.3258/81 are implemented and any enquiry or report of any other authority, revenue or police, cannot be put as an execute for not rendering the required help to the appellant to maintain his possession."

But a reading of the facts in that case are different from the

facts in this case. In that particular case, the Civil Court had

already granted police protection and when the police failed to

implement the same, the parties have approached this Court and

this Hon'ble Curt was pleased to pass the above order.

In R.Aademma vs. P.Narasimham2, a Division Bench of this

Court has observed as under:-

"We are clearly of the opinion that in order to do justice between the parties or to prevent the abuse of process of the Court, the Civil Courts have ample jurisdiction to give directions to the police authorities to render aid to the aggrieved parties with regard to the implementation of the orders of the Court or the exercise of the rights created under the orders of the ct. That the police authorities owe a legal duty to the public to enforce the law is clear from a decision of the Court of Appeal reported in R.V.Metroplitan Police Commissioner (1968)(1) All.E.R.763).

If the police authorities are under a legal duty to enforce the law and the public or the citizens are entitled to seek directions under Article 226 of the Constitution for discharge of such duties by the Police Authorities, we feel that the Civil Courts also, can give appropriate directions under Section 151 CPC to render aid to the aggrieved parties for the due and proper implementation of the orders of the Court."





    AIR 1971 A.P., 53
                                  7                                  AAR,J
                                                      W.P.No.12382 of 2021

Learned Counsel for the petitioner has stated that though

the petitioner has already filed an Interlocutory Application seeking

police protection, due to the Courts not working fully, the said

Interlocutory Application has not taken up.

Having regard to the law laid down by this Court as well as

the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases cited supra, and the

judgment and decree dated 19.12.2011 passed by this Court in

A.S. No.274 of 2007, the judgment dated 09.10.2015, passed by

the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos.2963 and 2964 of

2013, the interim order of injunction, dated 12.11.2020, passed in

I.A.No.178 of 2020 in O.S.No.292 of 2020 by the II Additional

District & Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy at L.B. Nagar, and the

injunction order dated 16.02.2021 passed in I.A. No.87 of 2021 in

O.S.No.165 of 2021 by the IX Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy

District at L.B. Nagar, this Court is of the opinion that ends of

justice would be met if the lower Court is directed to pass