L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J.

( 1 ) THIS writ petition is filed for a declaration that the inaction of the first respondent in not according necessary help to the petitioners, to protect their possession over an extent of Ac. 12-32 cents of land in various survey numbers of kasavarigudem Village, H/o. Kalvapalli village, Garidepalli Mandal of Nalgonda district, is illegal, arbitrary and violative of articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India. A consequential direction is sought to the first respondent for extension of necessary help to the petitioners.

( 2 ) BRIEFLY stated, the relevant facts are that the petitioners, or their predecessors in title as the case may be, were granted patta certificates, in respect of the land referred to above, by the Settlement Officer under the provisions of the Estates Abolition act, 1948, through order dated 23-3-1967. When the Respondents 2 to 5 tried to interfere with their possession, suits in OS nos. 45 and 46 of 1987 were filed in the court of Senior Civil Judge, Suryapet, for the relief of perpetual injunction. Respondents 2 to 5 in turn filed OS. No. 44 of 1987, for similar relief, in respect of the same land. Through a common judgment dated 29-6-1988, the Trial Court decreed the suits filed by the petitioners and dismissed the one filed by the Respondents 2 to 5. A. S. Nos. 21, 22 and 23 of 1988 were filed by the respondents 2 to 5 in the Court of District judge, Nalgonda. The appeals were dismissed, through a common judgment dated 21 -6-1991. Second Appeal Nos. 426 of 1991, 30 of 1992 and 38 of 1992 were filed in this Court by the Respondents 2 to 5. On 22-12-1999, this Court dismissed the second appeals, with certain directions. The possession of the petitioners over the land was affirmed, and it was directed that the same shall be subject to the out come of the proceedings that were pending before the Settlement Officer, after remand.

( 3 ) THE order dated 23-7-1967 passed by the Settlement Officer was challenged by the Respondents 2 to 5, before the director of Settlements, and the appeal was allowed through order dated 16-6-1995. The petitioners filed a revision before the commissioner of Survey, Settlements and land Records. Through the order dated 18-6-1998, the Commissioner of Settlements had set aside the order of the Director of settlements and remanded the matter to the Settlement Officer, for fresh disposal. Writ Petition No. 33697 of 1998, filed by the petitioners, was dismissed and confirmed in Writ Appeal No. 1472 of 1999. The matter is now said to be pending with the Settlement officer.

( 4 ) PETITIONERS contend that though the decree for perpetual injunction in their favour in OS. Nos. 45 and 46 of 1987 became final, the Respondents 2 to 5 started interfering with their possession, and when they complained the same to the first respondent, no action has been taken thereof.

( 5 ) ON behalf of Respondents 2 to 4, a counter-affidavit is filed. A detailed account of the proceedings that have ensued before the parties is furnished. It is also stated that Respondents 2 to 4 have been cultivating the land, and when the petitioners interfered, proceedings were initiated against them under the relevant provisions of Indian Penal Code. They contend that the writ petition is not maintainable for enforcing the decree in a suit for perpetual injunction.

( 6 ) SRI M. Rajamalla Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that the decree granted by the Trial Court in favour of the petitioners were affirmed by the Appellate Court in the First Appeals and by this Court in the second appeals. He contends that once the decree for perpetual injunction has become final, Respondents 2 to 5 cannot interfere with the possession, and that the first respondent is under obligation to ensure that the decrees passed by the Civil Courts are respected. He places reliance upon certain judgments rendered by this Court.

( 7 ) SMT. S. Nanda, learned Counsel lor the contesting Respondents 2 t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document