Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Chandaluri Babu Rao, Another, vs Prl.Secy., Home Dept. Hyd., 5 Others, on 19 April, 2024
APHC010707692015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3310]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY ,THE NINETEENTH DAY OF APRIL
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO
WRIT PETITION NO: 24632/2015
Between:
Chandaluri Babu Rao, & Another, and Others ...PETITIONER(S)
AND
Prl Secy Home Dept Hyd 5 Others and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner(S):
1. V S R ANJANEYALU
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. 12584/SATYANARAYANA SWAMY RAMISETTY
2. GP FOR HOME (AP)
3. 15548/GP FOR REVENUE (AP)
4. 16032/A SREEKANTH REDDY(SC FOR ENDOW RS)
5. MEKAPOTHULA SRINIVASA RAO SC FOR ENDOWMENTS PALNADU
PRAKASAM AND SPSR NELLORE
The Court made the following:
ORDER :
The present writ petition is filed declaring the action of the respondents in not providing the police aid to the petitioners on a complaint given by the petitioners in attending their agricultural operations in an extent of Ac 31.-00 cent in Sy.Nos. 25 & 76 of Nujellaplli village of J.Panguluru Mandal of Prakasam District to restrain the 5th respondent and villagers by respecting the orders in WPMP No.25172 of 2015 in WP No.19480 of 2015 and the decree of injunction in O.S.No.218 of 1984 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge's Court, Addanki, as illegal and arbitrary.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioners are Archakas in 6th respondent temple and they are doing services of dhoopa, deepa, naivedyam of Lord Sri Raja Rajeswara Swamy. The petitioners and their family members for the last three generations are looking after the welfare of the temple by attending the services to the dieity and the family of the petitioners have been in continuous peaceful possession and enjoyment of Ac 31.02 cents in Sy Nos.25&76 of Nujellapalli village of J.Panguluru Mandal of Prakasam District. While the things stood thus, the Executive officer of the 6th respondent temple is threatening the petitioners not to enter into the subject matter of the agricultural property in spite of the direction and filed a complaint before the J.Panguluru P.S., Prakasam District, and a case in FIR No.59 of 2015 was registered on 04.07.2015 under Sections 447, 435, 509, 506 read with 34 IPC. Questioning the same, the petitioners filed WP No.21172 of 2015 and this Court while ordering notice has granted interim stay of arrest of the petitioners and others. Thereafter, on 21.07.2015 the Executive Officer of the 6th respondent knowing fully well that there are circulars issued by the Commissioner of Endowments not to disturb the possession of the Archakas of the temple, along with local villagers obstructed their work and threatened the petitioners not to enter into the lands. Immediately the petitioners approached the Station House Officer, J.Panguluru requesting to provide Police aid to them to protect their possession and also their lives and also requested to take action against the persons who are interfering with their possession without any manner of right. Though the petitioners given the details of the persons involved in the offence, the police have not taking any action on their complaint. Hence, the present writ petition.
3. The Counter affidavit has been filed by the 4th respondent denying all the allegations made in the petition. It is stated that one D.Rajani Kumari, Executive Officer, lodged a complaint with this respondent police station, stating that the petitioners herein and others trespassed into the above said Endowments lands, ploughed the land with the tractor and removed the boundary stones fixed by the revenue authorities. Basing on the above complaint, a case in Crime No.59 of 2015 under Sections 447, 434, 509, 506 r/w 34 IPC has been registered against the petitioners and others. all the accused including the petitioners filed WP No.21172 of 2015 to quash the FIR and this Court vide order dated 30.07.2015 has granted interim stay of their arrest and the investigation may go on. Thereafter, this respondent received the petitioners' complaint through the Superintendent of Police, Prakasam District for necessary action. In the said complaint the petitioners stated that they are in possession of the subject lands but the 6th respondent herein and villagers interfered in the said land hence the petitioners requested to provide police aid to them. It is mainly stated that the petitioners instead of approaching the civil Court by obtaining police aid order, filed the present writ petition which is not maintainable.
4. Reply affidavit has been filed by the petitioners to the counter affidavit filed by the respondents. While reiterating the averments made in the petition stated that when admittedly they are in possession of the subject property since generations past doing hereditary archakatvam service, the petitioners are not able to understand, as to how the Executive Officer can claim that he took possession of vacant lands. The allegations that the petitioners conduct is to grab the property of the Endowments Department and that they are seeking police aid without having any right and possession over the same since are neither true nor correct. It is further stated that, to establish that the petitioners are in possession and enjoyment of the subject property, the Tahsildar has issued an adangal/pahani copy for the Fasli year 1424.
5. Heard Sri V.S.R. Anjaneyulu, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners; Sri R.Satyanrayana, learned counsel; learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue and Sri Mekapothula Srinivas, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
6. On hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners while reiterating the averments in the petition contended that the petitioners are claiming to be performing Archakatvam in 6th respondent temple and they are in possession of lands belonging to the temple, which they are now cultivating. He further submits that the suit in O.S No.218 of 1984 was filed by the petitioners for declaration and in that suit an injunction order was granted that the petitioners should not be displaced without following due process of law. He submits that though relevant material placed on record, the police are not inclined to receive the complaint against the Executive Officer and also the villagers and informed the petitioners that unless the court direct to give police aid, same cannot be given.
7. To support his contentions, learned Senior Counsel has placed reliance on a catena of decisions reported in (i) Neetha Chintawar and another v. Bodugam Gopi1, wherein the High Court of Judicature, Hyderabad held that :
Keeping aside the grammatical disorders, it is difficult to approve the view taken by the trial Court. Once an order of temporary injunction was granted by the trial Court under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C., after hearing both the parties, the respondents cannot be heard to say that the suit schedule property is not in the possession of the petitioners. The very grant of an order of temporary injunction pre-supposes that the Court is satisfied as to the prima facie possession of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property and as to the balance of convenience in according protection for such possession, pending disposal of the suit. If the defendant in a suit is aggrieved by the grant of such an order, the only course open to him would be to prefer an appeal and if necessary, pursue the further remedy of revision etc. Having suffered an order of temporary injunction, the defendant cannot be permitted to plead that the plaintiff is not in possession of the suit schedule property.
7. The second observation made by the trial Court is equally untenable. For all practical purposes, it had annulled the order of temporary injunction granted by it rendered it ineffective. It hardly needs any emphasis that an order of temporary injunction would require the parties to it, to abide by the directions contained in it. Though, it is competent for a plaintiff to institute proceedings under sub-rule (2) of Rule 2 (sic. 2-A) of Order 39 C.P.C., if the defendant commits breach of the order of temporary injunction, he can also approach the Court, for police protection. In such an event, the Courts are under obligation to accord necessary protection. By ordering such applications, the Courts would not be extending any favour to the parties, but would be taking steps for effective implementation of their own orders and thereby, upholding the dignity and effectiveness of the institution of Judiciary.
8. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of Satyanarayana Tiwari v. S.H.O., P.S. Santhoshnagar held that it would be incumbent upon the civil Courts to ensure that the orders of 1 2006(4) ALT 660 (S.B) temporary injunction passed by them are respected and implemented by the concerned. In the cases of P. Shanker Rao v. B. Susheela 2002 (2) ALT 606 and Sangu Brahman v. Station House Officer , this Court reiterated the said legal position. Therefore, the order passed by the trial Court cannot be sustained either on facts or in law.
9. Hence, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed and the order under revision is set aside. Since it is found that the order of temporary injunction passed by the trial Court is in force, I.A. No. 413 of 2005 is allowed; and the S.H.O Adilabad(Rural)P.S.,is directed to grant necessary protection to the petitioners herein, to enforce the order of temporary injunction passed by the trial Court in I.A. No. 368 of 2005 in O.S. No. 189 of 2005.
(ii) In A.Bharathi and others v. State of Telangana and others2, wherein the High Court of Judicature, Telangana and Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad held that :
Temporary injunction-restraining defendants from interfering with peaceful possession and enjoyment of plaintiffs in respect of their land-police aid for implementation of injunction order-can be granted not only by civil Court in exercise of its power under Section 151 but also under Art.226 of Constitution as held by High Court in AIR 1982 AP 394 (DB) and 2016(1) ALD 696 (DB) and Supreme Court in (2006) 4 SCC 501-Prima facie title and possession of petitioners/plaintiffs having been established after contest by Civil Court, there cannot be any doubt that they can seek relief of police protection under Art.226 of Constitution.
...The Division Bench reversed the same by holding that there is no bar for granting police aid in writ jurisdiction.
....Since in the present case, the prima facie title and possession of the petitioners has been established after contest by the civil Court, there cannot be any dispute tht they can seek the relief of police protection under Article 226 of the constitution of India.
It is also held that the Supreme Court held that a Court of equity must act so as to prevent perpetration of a legal fraud and promote good faith and equity and the Court must advance the cause of justice and not to thwart it.
(iii) In another case reported in Sama Jana Reddy @ Jani v. Muppa Narsimha Reddy3, wherein the High Court of Judicature, Telangana and Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad held that:
"....thus, the apex Court fairly lays down that to implement the orders of the Court including to grant police aid, inherent powers inheres in every Court under Section 151 CPC can be exercised."
(iv) In Boina Laxmi v. State of Andhra Pradesh4, wherein the High Court of Judicature , Telangana and Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad, held that:
.."It is not in dispute that the order, making the earlier order of interim injunction absolute, was passed after hearing the appellants herein. it is also not in dispute that the said order of interim injunction continues to remain in force as on date. The submission of Sri Vedula Srinivas, learned 2 2017(1)ALD 503 3 2017(2) ALD 584 4 2019(1) ALD 263 (DB) counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, is that the learned Single Judge ought not to have rd reviewed the earlier order directing the police officials to consider the representation of the 3 respondent-writ petitioner for grant of police aid, and should not have directed the police officials to rd provide police protection as the burden is on the 3 respondent-writ petitioner to establish that the order of temporary injunction was violated; and the degree of proof required to establish such violation is of a very high order.
In the present case, the order of temporary injunction was made absolute on 18.7.2017 after the appellants were heard. As the order dated 18.7.2017 continues to remain in force as on date, the appellants cannot be heard to contend that thy are in possession of the subject property, since an order of interim injunction is granted only if the applicant is held to be in possession of the subject property necessitating the respondent-defendant to be unjuncted from interfering with the possession of the rd applicant(3 respondent-writ petitioner).
"As the jurisdiction which this Court exercises, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is discretionary, the learned Single Judge has, in our view rightly, exercised his discretion to direct the rd police officials to provide police protection to the 3 respondent-writ petitioners in the light of the order of temporary injunction being made absolute by the Court below on 18.7.2017 after giving the appellants an opportunity of being heard. The appellants' interests have been adequately safeguarded by the learned single Judge making it clear that the order of police protection would be available to the respondent-writ petitioner only till the order passed by the Civil Court, in I.A No.851 of 2015 dated 18.7.2017 was stayed, reviewed or set aside by a superior Copurt. In an intra-Court appeal, under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, interference is justified only if the order under appeal suffers from a patent illegality. We find no such infirmity in the order under appeal."
(v) In a case of Rai Naramma and others v. State of Andhra Pradesh and others5, wherein the High Court of Andhra Pradesh held that :
"Police aid - for effective implementation of ad-interim injunction order passed in petition for temporary injunction in suit for permanent injunction - cannot be granted."
8. Per contra, learned Assistant Government pleader for the respondents while reiterating the contents in the counter affidavit contended that as per the certificate of Tahsildar, Panguluru Mandal vide Rc A.89/15 dated 7.8.2015 the lands of the temple in the above said land is under control of Endowment Department and vacant land without crop have been plotted in acres. He submitted that after going through the contents of the affidavit and material papers filed in support of the writ petition, it seems that the above said lands are under civil dispute in O.S No.218 of 1989 on the file of Hon'ble Principal Junior Civil Judge, Addanki, for which, the respondents police nothing to do with it. The petitioners unnecessarily involving the respondents police into civil litigation. He mainly contended that the petitioners instead of approaching the civil Court by obtaining police aid order, filed the present writ petition which is not maintainable and the same is liable to be dismissed. 5 2021(3) ALD 238 (AP)
9. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and on considering the submissions of both the learned counsels, this Court deems fit to allow the present writ petition.
10. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed, and action of the respondents in not providing police aid in implementing the injunction order granted in favour of the petitioners in O.S No.218 of 1984 by the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Addanki restraining the 5th respondent and villagers by respecting orders in WPMP No.25172 of 2015 in WP No.19480 of 2015, is declared as illegal and arbitrary. Further, the respondents are directed to provide police protection for implementation of the said orders. there shall be no order as to costs.
11. It is made clear that this order will be subject to the result of the suit in O.S No.218 of 1984 pending on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge's Court, Addanki.
12. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.
______________________________ DR. K. MANMADHA RAO, J.
Gvl