Telangana High Court
Vadhya Shanthamma Shantha, vs The State Of Telangana And 8 Others on 20 March, 2023
Bench: P.Madhavi Devi
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE P.MADHAVI DEVI
WRIT PETITION No.7655 of 2023
ORDER:
This Writ Petition is filed seeking a writ of mandamus
declaring the action of the Respondent No.5 in not considering the
representation dated 25.12.2022 and non-initiating to provide police
protection to the petitioner's agricultural land to an extent of
Ac.1.12 gts in Sy.No.351 situated at Vavillapally Village,
Narayanpur Mandal, Yadadri-Bhuvanagiri District to implement the
Order passed by the Hon'ble Junior Civil Judge at Nalgonda in
I.A.No.745 of 2016 in O.S.No.406 of 2016 dated 27.06.2017 as
illegal and arbitrary and consequently to direct the respondent No.5
to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 25.12.2022
and to provide police protection to the petitioner's agricultural land
and to pass such other order or orders.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
petitioner has already obtained interim injunction order in
I.A.No.745 of 2016 in O.S.No.406 of 2016. However, the grievance of
the petitioner is that in spite of the above order, the respondents are
interfering with his possession over the subject land and therefore
has filed the present Writ Petition for police protection.
PMD,J
W.P.No.7655 of 2023
3. Learned Government Pleader for Home appearing for
respondents No.1 to 5, opposed the said writ petition and submitted
that in petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
the police cannot be involved and cannot be directed to protect the
agricultural land of the petitioner. He also placed reliance upon the
judgment of this Court of the Division bench in W.A.No.187 of 2023
dated 13.02.2023 wherein this Court has held as under:
"13. In the instant case, what appellants had sought for
before the learned Single Judge was execution of the
injunction order. A writ proceeding cannot be converted into
an execution proceeding. If the appellants feel that
respondent No.6 is obstructing them from enjoying the fruits
of the injunction order or if there is any disobedience to or
breach of the injunction order, then the remedy of the
appellants would be to invoke the provisions of Rule 2A of
Order XXXIX of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC).
14. Rule 2A of Order XXXIX of CPC reads as under:
2A. Consequence of disobedience or breach of
injunction.
(1) In the case of disobedience of any injunction
granted or other order made under rule 1 or rule 2 or
breach of any of the terms on which the injunction
was granted or the order made, the Court granting the
injunction or making the order, or any Court to which
the suit or proceeding is transferred, may order the
property of the person guilty of such disobedience or
breach to be attached, and may also order such
person to be detained in the civil prison for a term not
exceeding three months, unless in the meantime the
Court directs his release.
(2) No attachment made under this rule shall remain
in force for more than one year, at the end of which
time if the disobedience or breach continues, the
PMD,J
W.P.No.7655 of 2023
property attached may be sold and out of the
proceeds, the Court may award such compensation as
it thinks fit to the injured party and shall pay the
balance, if any, to the party entitled thereto.
15. From the above, it is evident that if there is any
disobedience to an order of injunction made under Rule 1 or
Rule 2 of Order XXXIX CPC or breach of any of the terms on
which the injunction was granted or the order made, the
Court granting injunction or any court to which the suit or
proceeding is transferred may order the property of the
person guilty of such disobedience or breach to be attached
and may also order such person to be detained in civil
prison for a term not exceeding three months unless in the
meantime, the Court directs his release. Therefore, Rule 2A
of Order XXXIX CPC provides for an adequate and
efficacious remedy to a person who is aggrieved by
disobedience to or breach of an injunction order granted in
his favour.
16. That being so, we are of the view that petitions filed
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking police
aid to enforce or implement an order of injunction or to
restrain persons from interfering with the order of injunction
should not be ordinarily entertained unless an element of
injury to the public or infraction of statute is made out.
Otherwise, it would amount to entering into an arena of
private dispute(s).
17. Accordingly, granting liberty to the appellants to
avail their remedy under Order XXXIX Rule 2A CPC, the
writ appeal is dismissed. No costs."
PMD,J
W.P.No.7655 of 2023
4. Respectfully following the same, the present Writ Petition is
dismissed at the admission stage with liberty to the petitioner to
avail the remedy under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 if he so chooses. There shall be no order as to
costs.
Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall also stand
closed.
_____________________________
JUSTICE P.MADHAVI DEVI
Date: 20.03.2023
PRN
PMD,J
W.P.No.7655 of 2023
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE P. MADHAVI DEVI
WRIT PETITION No.7655 of 2023
Date: 20.03.2023
PRN
