Telangana High Court
Puskuri Raja Kishan Rao vs The State Of Telangana And 12 ... on 4 July, 2022
Bench: Lalitha Kanneganti
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
WRIT PETITION No. 26305 of 2022
O R D E R:
This Writ Petition is filed questioning the action of the respondents
in not considering the applications dated 29.05.2019 and 23.05.2022
submitted by the petitioner to the 2nd respondent requesting to take
appropriate action against respondent Nos.6 to 13, who are interfering
with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioner in respect of land in
Sy.No.398/1, admeasuring Ac.1.04 guntas, situated at Sabepally Revenue
Village, Hazipur Mandal, Mancherial District, for implementation of
judgment and decree in O.S.No.141 of 2014 dated 25.02.2019 on the file
of the Principal Junior Civil Judge's Court, Mancherial, as illegal and
arbitrary.
2. Sri A.Prabhakar Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits
that the petitioner has filed O.S.No.141 of 2014 on the file of the
Principal Junior Civil Judge, Mancherial, seeking perpetual injunction
and on contest the said suit was decreed on 25.02.2019 and no appeal has
been preferred against the said judgment and decree and it has become
final. In spite of the judgment and decree passed by the competent Court,
the respondents are interfering with the petitioner's possession. Then, he
filed E.P.No.39 of 2019 and the same is pending adjudication. He
submits that he filed an application seeking police protection dated
29.05.2019 and the respondent police failed to take any action. Then, the
petitioner has given another representation dated 23.05.2022. He submits
that as the respondents failed to take any action, the petitioner has come
up before this Court.
3. Sri S.Rammohan Rao, learned Assistant Government Pleader for
Home, on instructions, submits that basing on the complaint received
from the petitioner, the respondent police have registered a case in Crime
No.84 of 2022. As far as granting of police protection is concerned, the
respondent police are providing protection only basing on the orders
passed either by the competent civil Court or by this Court in accordance
with G.O.Rt.No.655 dated 30.03.1997. He submits that the petitioner has
effective alternative remedy and the Division Bench of this Court in
W.A.No.38 of 2022 dated 28.01.2022 has observed that in case there is
breach of injunction order, the remedy is not before the police, but the
remedy was available before the same Court which has passed the order
of injunction.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Division Bench
of this Court in Satyanarayana Tiwari v. S.H.O., P.S.
Santhoshanagar, Hyderabad1 has held this Court has power to grant
police protection.
5. It appears from the material on record, the petitioner has succeeded
in the suit for injunction in the year 2019 and he has made representations
to the respondent police on 29.05.2019 and 23.05.2022. The respondent
police ought to have considered those representations and pass orders
whether they can provide police protection or not and for what reasons
they are not able to grant police protection. This Court deems it
appropriate to direct the respondent Police to consider the representations
of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law
within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
6. It is stated by the petitioner that that E.P. filed by the petitioner is
pending consideration before the Court below. On the other hand,
learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that respondent Nos.9 to 11,
who are defendant Nos.4 to 6 in O.S.No.141 of 2014 were set ex parte.
AIR 1982 AP 394
7. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. This order will not
come in the way of the civil Court in passing the orders in E.P. No order
as to costs.
Miscellaneous Applications, pending if any, shall stand closed.
__________________________
LALITHA KANNEGANTI, J
July 4, 2022
mar
