Telangana High Court
Sri Kanala Ambujodhar Reddy vs The State Of Telangana, on 17 January, 2022
Author: K. Lakshman
Bench: K.Lakshman
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN
WRIT PETITION No.5658 OF 2021
ORDER:
This Writ Petition is filed to declare inaction of the respondents-Police in not providing police protection to the petitioners in order to safeguard the property in Sy.No.112/RU1 admeasuring 1.271/2 guntas, Sy.No.112/RUU2 admeasuring 2.071/2 guntas, Sy.No.112/RU2 admeasuring 1.271/2 guntas and Sy.No.112/RUU3A admeasuring 2.071/2 guntas, total admeasuring Ac.7.30 guntas situated at Hathnoora Village and Mandal, Sanga Reddy district (hereinafter referred as 'the subject property'), despite repeated requests made by the petitioner, as illegal.
2. Heard Sri V.T.Kalyan, learned counsel for the petitioners, Jalli Kanakaiah, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.4 to 15 and Sri S.Ram Mohan, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home and perused the record.
3. The petitioners herein are claiming that they are absolute owners and possessors of the subject property. They are claiming that they have purchased the said property under registered sale deed bearing document No.1190 of 2006, dated 02.02.2006. It is further contended by the petitioners that they are in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the subject property. When they tried to fence the land, the unofficial respondents started interfering with their possession over the subject property. Therefore, the petitioners herein have filed a 2 suit vide O.S.No.82 of 2018 before the learned Junior Civil Judge, Narsapur, seeking perpetual injunction. They have also filed an application vide I.A.No.278 of 2018 in the said suit seeking ad-interim injunction restraining the unofficial respondents from interfering with the subject property. The Court below, vide order dated 05.09.2018 granted ex parte ad- interim injunction and the presence of the unofficial respondents was also recorded in the said order. The said order is neither challenged nor implemented. Despite the said order, the unofficial respondents are creating disturbance and trying to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioners over the subject property. They have submitted representation to 3rd respondent-Police with a request to provide Police aid. Despite receiving and acknowledging the said representation, 3rd respondent did not act upon it. Therefore, the present writ petition.
4. Respondent Nos.4 to 15 have filed counter contending that the land in Sy.No.112 of Hathnoora Village and Mandal is inam land and the claim of individuals for issuance of Occupancy Rights Certificate to the eligible persons was not decided. In fact, the revenue authorities themselves are unable to assess the genuineness of the claims etc. Therefore, the claim of the petitioners is untenable. Notices in O.S.No.82 of 2018 were not served on all the defendants therein. It is further contended that as per the orders, dated 07.11.2014 of the Revenue Divisional Officer, the entire land in Sy.No.112 is with 3 Government. Therefore, the question of conducting survey by the Tahsildar by deputing Mandal Surveyor is nothing but collection of evidence. Until and unless the interim injunction is not made absolute, the petitioners are not entitled for police protection. With the said contentions, the respondent Nos.4 to 15 sought to dismiss the present Writ Petition.
5. A perusal of record would reveal that the petitioners herein, claiming to be owners of the subject property, filed the above said suit vide O.S.No.82 of 2018 against the unofficial respondents herein seeking perpetual injunction. In the said suit, the petitioners herein have also filed a petition vide I.A.No.278 of 2018 seeking interim injunction. The Court below, vide order dated 05.09.2018 granted ex parte ad-interim injunction in favour of the petitioners restraining unofficial respondents herein from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioners over the subject property till 25.09.2018.
6. The unofficial respondents have not filed their counters in I.A.No.278 of 2018 and written statements in the suit. In fact, on 30.04.2019, Defendant Nos.1 and 2/respondent Nos.14 and 5 herein were present and sought final chance for engaging counsel. Defendant Nos.3, 6, 7, 11 and 12 are set ex parte and fresh summons were ordered to defendant Nos.4, 5, 8, 9 and 10 in the said suit. On 22.07.2019, the said suit was posted for service of summons on defendant Nos.4, 5 and 8 to 30.09.2019. Thereafter, the said suit is posted along with Interlocutory 4 Applications and it was adjourned from time to time. On 07.12.2020, the Court below recorded that the plaintiff counsel submitted that he is pursuing to ascertain correct address of Defendant Nos.4, 5 and 8 and posted the suit to 08.02.2021. Thereafter, the matter was adjourned due to the present COVID- 19 pandemic situation and due to Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) issued by this Court from time to time.
7. Perusal of record would also reveal that the petitioners herein have filed a petition in O.S.No.82 of 2018 seeking appropriate orders allowing the petitioners to avail Police protection from the Station House Officer, Hathnoora village and Mandal, i.e. 3rd respondent herein. It was filed on 25.02.2021 vide CFR No.184 of 2021 and the asme was numbered as I.A.No.108 of 2021.
8. It is also relevant to note that the petitioners herein have lodged a complaint with the 3rd respondent on 05.07.2019 complaining about the trespass, obstruction and interference by the unofficial respondents. In the said complaint, it is mentioned that when the petitioners were cleaning, leveling and fencing the land as per the boundaries fixed based on the land survey panchanama conducted under the directions of the Tahasildar, Hathnoora Mandal, in the presence of the Deputy Inspector from the office of the Assistant Director, Land Survey, Sangareddy and the unofficial respondents interfered with their possession and obstructed the said fencing. Therefore, the petitioners herein requested 3rd respondent to take action. On receipt of the 5 said complaint, after making entry in the General Diary, 3rd respondent has requested the Tahasildar, Hathnoora Mandal, to visit the spot and to conduct survey of land in Sy.No.112 and fixed boundaries of the land for Law and Order purpose.
9. The above said facts would reveal that the order dated 05.09.2018 is an ex parte order and the same was extended until further orders by recording the presence of unofficial respondents herein. In the suit, the Court below has ordered fresh summons to some of the defendants. It is also relevant to note that the Tahasildar, Hathnoora Mandal, vide Lr.No. B/1445/2019, dated 06.08.2019, basing on the report of the Girdarvar, Hathnoor village and Village Revenue Officer, Hathnoora village, dated 31.08.2019 specifically mentioned that the petitioners herein are joint owners and possessors of the subject land and the same is ascertained through all the registered documents, pattadar passbook, revenue records and they are in physical possession. At present, the said land kept fallow and the details of the extent, survey number, name of the pattadar and name of the occupant etc., are specifically mentioned in the tabular form in the said letter. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also filed the said report, dated 31.07.2019 and 11.01.2019.
10. A perusal of record would also reveal that the predecessors in title of the petitioners herein have filed a suit O.S.No.18 of 1997 against some of the unofficial respondents and others seeking perpetual injunction and the same was 6 decreed on 04.10.2002. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, no appeal was preferred against the said decree and judgment, dated 04.10.2002 in O.S.No.18 of 1997. Therefore, it had attained finality.
11. The above stated facts would reveal that the petitioners herein are claiming right and possession over the subject property. There is ad-interim injunction granted in I.A.No.278 of 2018 in O.S.No.82 of 2018 by the Court below. It is also relevant to note that the petitioners herein have filed a petition vide I.A.No.108 of 2021 in I.A.No.278 of 2018 in O.S.No.82 of 2018 seeking Police protection in the month of February,2021 and the Court below has not been able to expediently consider the said Interlocutory Application of the petitioners. Therefore, they have filed the present writ petition.
12. There is no dispute with regard to the power of this Court to grant Police aid by invoking its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Hon'ble Apex Court and this Court in Satyanarayana Tiwari Vs. SHO, P.S.Santosh Nagar, Hyderabad1, Kotak Mahindra Bank Vs. Station House Officer2 and in A.Bharathi Vs.State of Telangana3 confirmed vide order dated 24.10.2016 in W.A.No.1066 of 2016 and also the Hon'ble Apex Court in PR Muralidharan Vs. Swami Dharmananda Theertha Padar4. 1 AIR 1982 AP 394 DB 2 2016 (1) ALD 696 DB 3 2017 (1) ALD 503 4 2006 (4) SCC 501 7 Ritish Tewari Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh5, Union of India Vs. Maj. Gen. Madan Lal Yadav6 and Devendra Kumar Vs. State of Uttaranchal7 categorically held that this Court is having power to grant police protection under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, there is no dispute with regard to said principle.
13. As discussed above, the petitioners herein are claiming right over the subject property and they have an injunction in their favour. But it is not an order on merits after contest. It was an ex parte order and made absolute for non-filing of counter. It is relevant to note that the petitioners herein have filed I.A.No.108 of 2021 in I.A.No.278 of 2018 in O.S.No.82 of 2018 seeking Police protection on the ground that despite injunction, the unofficial respondents are interfering with their possession and obstructing fencing etc., and despite submission of specific representation, 3rd respondent-Police are not providing them Police protection. In the said petition I.A.No.108 of 2021, the petitioners herein have specifically contended that despite the said orders, unofficial respondents, their ladies are interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioners over the subject property continuously and due to which the petitioners herein are not in position to conduct agricultural operations. The said I.A.No.108 of 2021 filed on 25.02.2021 vide CFR No.184 of 2021.
5 2010 (10) SCC 677 6 1996 (4) SCC 127 7 2013 (9) SCC 366 8
14. Now the only grievance of the petitioners herein is that though it was filed in the month of February, 2021 seeking Police aid, the Court below has not been able to expediently consider the same and therefore, they have approached this Court by filing the present Writ Petition. Thus, the petitioners are pursuing parallel remedies. The petitioners herein cannot file the present writ petition seeking police protection on the ground that the Court below is not taking up the Police aid application filed by the petitioners herein vide I.A.No.108 of 2021 as expeditiously as possible. If the petitioners are aggrieved by the said inaction of the Court below, they have to avail other remedies available under the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, 'the CPC'). But not by way of filing the present Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
15. As discussed above, the suit is pending. Some of the unofficial respondents who are defendants in the suit, have appeared and they sought time to file counter. There are rival claims with regard to title and possession of the said property between the parties. Therefore, according to this Court, the petitioners herein have to pursue the said I.A.No.108 of 2021 in I.A.No.278 of 2018 in O.S.No.82 of 2018, but not in the present writ petition.
16. In view of the said discussion, this Writ Petition is disposed of directing the learned Junior Civil Judge, Narsapur, Sanga Reddy district, to decide I.A.No.108 of 2021 in I.A.No.278 9 of 2018 in O.S.No.82 of 2018 pending before him, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of two months from the date of copy of this order by following the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) issued by this Court from time to time. Petitioners and respondent Nos.4 to 15 are at liberty to take all the pleas and grounds raised in the present writ petition before the Court below.
17. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending, shall also stand closed.
__________________ K. LAKSHMAN, J Date:17.01.2022 Vvr