Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : A.GOPAL RAO
INDIAN HOTELS COMPANY LIMITED - Appellant
Versus
COMMISSIONER OF POLICE - Respondent
Decided On : 02-09-96
WRIT PETITION - POLICE ASSISTANCE - ACT-SECTION REFERRED: ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, ORDER 39, RULE 2 (A) C. P. C., SECTION 35 OF THE INDIAN STAMP ACT - SUMMARY: The court held that the petitioner, who was in possession of two palaces, was entitled to protection from the police to sustain its possession. The court also held that the petitioner could not be evicted from the palaces without due process of law. The court further held that the lease agreement, even if it was not registered or stamped, could be validated by impounding the document and collecting the required stamp duty and penalty.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, Indian Hotels Company Limited, filed a writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus to declare the actions of the respondents, the Commissioner of Police and the Deputy Commissioner of Police, in not providing assistance in implementing an order of the civil court, as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner was in possession of two palaces, Falaknuma Palace and Chow Mohalla Palace, under an oral lease agreement with the third respondent. The third respondent threatened to dispossess the petitioner from the palaces, and the petitioner obtained an interim injunction from the civil court restraining the third respondent from doing so. The petitioner also filed the present writ petition seeking police assistance to enforce the injunction.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the petitioner was entitled to protection from the police to sustain its possession of the palaces. The court also held that the petitioner could not be evicted from the palaces without due process of law. The court further held that the lease agreement, even if it was not registered or stamped, could be validated by impounding the document and collecting the required stamp duty and penalty.
Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to police assistance to enforce an injunction order of the civil court.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the following principles in reaching its decision: * The High Court has the power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to enforce its own orders or the orders of the civil court. * The police authorities are bound to give all assistance to the appellant to enforce and see that the injunction order is implemented. * A party in possession of property is entitled to protection from the police to sustain its possession. * A party cannot be evicted from property without due process of law.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition and issued a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to provide police assistance to the petitioner to enforce the injunction order of the civil court.
( 2 ) THIS Writ Petition was admitted on 1-12-1995 and on the same day in W. P. M. P. 33832/95, this Court passed the following order:"as the matter is emergent one, I have taken up the Writ Petition out of order as the time mentioned for taking over possession by respondents 3 and 4 as 11. 00 a. m today, i. e. , 1-12-1995. I see prima facie case and balance of convenience in favour of the petitioner. In the circumstances, there shall be an interim injunction restraining the respondents 3 and 4,their workmen, agents and security guards etc. , from either dispossessing or interfering with the possession of the petitioner over falaknuma Palace situated at falakmnuma, Old City Hyderabad and chow Mohalla Palace situated at Moti galli Mubarak, Charminar, Hyderabad until further orders of this Court. The 2nd respondent shall give assistance to the assistant Registrar of this Court Mr. P. Venkateswarulu, who is being deputed along with an Attender of this Court inview of the Special urgency and circumstances of the case to see that this order is not violated by respodents 3 and 4 ortheir workmen, agents and Security guards etc. The 2nd respondent is also directed to provide police assistance to maintain the orders of this Court. Notice. "respondents 3 and 4 filed a counter-affidavit along with a petition (to vacate the interim order passed by this Court on 1-12-1995, extracted above,), W. V. M. P. No 2911/1995 in WPMP 33832/1995 in Writ Petition no. 2741/1995.
( 3 ) LEARNED Counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for home appearing for respondents 1 and 2 and the learned counsel appearing for respondents 3 and 4 submitted that as the arguments in the interlocutory stage as well as in the main writ Petition being one and the same, the main writ petition itself can be taken up for hearing, for decision. Therefore, the main Writ Petition, W. P. No. 2741 of 1995 is being disposed of by this order.
( 4 ) THE petitioner is the plaintiff in Original Suit No. 1448 of 1995 on the file of the First additional Judge, City Civil Court, hyderabad. That suit was filed by the petitioner seeking perpetual injunction against the defendants therein, who are respondents 3 and 4 herein, from interfering with its possession of the suit schedule properties. Interlocutory Application No. 1550 of 1995 was filed in the said suito. S. No. 1448/1995 in the said Civil Court by the petitioner/ plaintiff, seeking ad-interim injunction. The learned Judge, by Order, dated 29-11-1995, made the following Order;"both the parties shall maintain status quo" as on today till 8-12-1995, in and over the Suit Schedule Palaces. The LA. stands posted to 8-12-1995". The above said order dated 29-11-1995 isbeing extended by the civil court from time to time and the same was already served on respondent No. 4 on 29-11-1995 itself.
( 5 ) WHEN the defendants in the suit threatened the petitioner/plaintiff to dispossess, from the suit schedule properties, notwithstanding the order dated 29-11-1995 passed by the Civil Court,extracted above, petitioner filed the present Writ Petition on 1-12-1995 and obtained interim directions from this court in WPMP 33832/95 in w. P. No. 27410/95, extracted already.
( 6 ) A few facts are necessarily to be noted here, for the purpose of disposal of this writ Petition. There are two Palaces - the falaknuma Palace and Chow Mohalla Palace in the Hyderabad City owned by H. E. H. The Nizam-VIII. The 3rd respondent orally agreed to let out these two P
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
