Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Smt.G.Nagaratnamma, vs The State Of A.P. on 10 September, 2020
Author: M.Satyanarayana Murthy
Bench: M.Satyanarayana Murthy
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY
WRIT PETITION NO.9461 OF 2019
ORDER:
This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief:-
"to issue an order, writ or direction more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of 3rd respondent police in not taking steps to prevent respondents 4 to 6 from making illegal construction in the petitioner's land situated in Sy.No.551 in an extent of Ac.0.17 cents of Gorantla Village and Mandal, Anantapuramu District though petitioner's title is declared in O.S.No.80 of 2011 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Penukonda, as illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice and violative of Articles 14 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the 3rd respondent police to take necessary steps to implement judgment and decree in the said suit, in the interest of justice, and pass such other order."
2. The case of petitioner is that she is the absolute owner and possessor of the property in Sy.No.550 in an extent of Ac.0.14 cents out of Ac.3.41 cents out of Ac.14.43 cents and an extent of Ac.0.17 cents in Sy.No.551 out of Ac.3.00 cents out of Ac.14.81 cents of Gorantla Village and Mandal of Ananthapuramu District. Without knowing the boundaries, the said Society encroached into the land of petitioner and constructed a building, therefore to compensate, the society executed an exchange deed in favour of petitioner, transferring the above land in an extent of Ac.0.14 cents and Ac.0.17 cents on 11.11.2009. When respondents 4 to 6, without any manner of right interfered, the petitioner filed O.S.No.80 of 2011 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Penukonda, for declaration of title and consequential permanent injunction and the suit is decreed on 12.07.2012.
2
3. While the things stood thus, recently respondents 4 to 6 started construction in the above land in an extent of Ac.0.17 cents situated in Sy.No.551 and immediately he lodged a complaint before Gorantla Police Station as well as to the Gram Panchayat, but no action was taken though the petitioner filed an application to provide necessary police protection. Failure to give necessary protection to the petitioner in implementing the decree in O.S.No.80 of 2011 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Penukonda is nothing but failure to discharge public duty by the 3rd respondent and requested to issue necessary direction.
4. During the course of hearing, Sri S.D.Gowd, learned counsel for petitioner reiterated the contentions urged in the petition while submitting that E.P.No.24 of 2019 in O.S.No.80 of 2011 is filed on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Penukonda under Order 21 Rule 32 of CPC for execution of decree passed by the Court on 12.07.2012 and requested to issue necessary direction to the 3rd respondent or to the concerned police.
5. Whereas, learned Government Pleader for Home fairly conceded that unless there is a direction from the Court the respondent police cannot provide police protection and requested to pass appropriate order.
6. Admittedly, E.P.No.24 of 2019 in O.S.No.80 of 2011 is filed on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Penukonda for execution of decree dated 12.07.2012, by resorting to the procedure under Order 21 Rule 32 of CPC. Order 21 Rule 32 of CPC permits to pass an order directing that the act required to be done as far as possible, which is inclusive of police protection. Therefore, when the petitioner filed 3 Execution Petition for implementation of the decree after obtaining necessary protection from the police, he cannot now approach this Court to provide police protection by prosecuting parallel procedure in two different Courts i.e., in Civil Court and High Court. Hence, petitioner is directed to prosecute E.P.No.24 of 2019 in O.S.No.80 of 2011 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Penukonda for providing necessary police protection, as a part of execution proceedings, subject to satisfying the executing Court. But, this Court cannot exercise such power to issue direction when Execution Petition is pending.
7. With the above direction, Writ Petition is disposed of, while leaving it open to the petitioner to claim such relief. At this stage, Sri S.D. Gowd, learned counsel for petitioner represented that no Presiding Officer is posted at Junior Civil Judge's Court, Penukonda. No doubt, no regular Presiding Officer is posted. Hence, the office who is placed as Full Additional Charge is directed to pass appropriate orders in the said Execution Petition, in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
________________________________________ JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANAMURTHY 10th September, 2020.
IS 4 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY WRIT PETITION NO.9461 OF 2020 Dated: 10.09.2020 IS