The High Court has the power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue writs, including mandamus, to enforce orders of civil courts and protect legal rights, including the right to peaceful possession of property.

ORDER :

P. Keshava Rao, J.

1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned G.P. appearing for respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and the learned Counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 5 to 7.

2. The prayer sought in the writ petition is as under:

"....to issue a writ, direction, order or orders more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 2 to 4 to provide police aid for implementing the injunction order dated 7.9.2011 passed in OS No. 394/2011 on the file of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Rajahmundry duly considering petitioner's complaint dated 2.10.2016 in the interest of justice."

3. The case of the petitioner is that he is the absolute owner and possessor of land admeasuring Acs. 2.07 cents in Sy. No. 56/1A, Ac. 0.01 cents in Sy. No. 56/1C, Ac. 0.51 cents in Sy. No. 55/3, Ac. 0.16 cents in Sy. No. 55/5A, Ac. 0.58 cents in Sy. No. 55/2, Ac. 0.19 cents in Sy. No. 55/4A and Ac. 1.82 cents in Sy. No. 54/2A of Hukkumpeta Village, Rajahmahendravaram Rural Mandal, East Godavari District. The petitioner also became owner of purchased some other lands through registered settlement deed Nos. 4271/1970 dated 15.10.1970 and 579/2001 dated 30.3.2001. In respect of the above said lands, the name of the petitioner was mutated in the revenue records and a copy of Form-I-B was also issued. When respondent No. 5 and his father tried to interfere with his peaceful possession and enjoyment, he was constrained to file a suit in OS No. 394 of 2011 on the file of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Rajahmundry seeking permanent injunction. The said suit was decreed on 7.9.2011 restraining the defendants therein and their men from interfering with the petitioner's peaceful possession and enjoyment over the subject property. Inspite of having knowledge, when the respondent Nos. 5 to 7 tried to interfere with his peaceful possession with the help of unsocial elements, respondent No. 4 issued proceedings dated 14.7.2016 requesting the Mandal Executive Magistrate to initiate proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. Accordingly, proceedings dated 22.9.2006 were issued holding that the total extent of land admeasuring Acs. 5.33 cents has been in possession and enjoyment of the petitioner. However, on 1.10.2016, respondent Nos. 5 to 7 and their men destroyed the fencing around the subject property highhandedly and threatened the petitioner. He lodged a complaint leading to registration of Cr. No. 312 of 2016 against respondent Nos. 5 to 7 herein and others for the offence under Sections 188, 447, 427 and 506 read with 34 IPC. Though the petitioner is having a decree in his favour in OS No. 394 of 2011, respondent Nos. 5 to 7 are trying to interfere with his possession and they have already damaged his property. Therefore, the present writ petition is filed seeking police protection.

4. Respondent No. 5 filed a counter-affidavit denying the material allegations made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition and contended inter alia that respondent Nos. 5 to 7 have no knowledge about the decree in OS No. 394 of 2011 dated 7.9.2011. It is further denied that respondent No. 4 was requested to initiate proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. after enquiry; and proceedings dated 22.9.2016 were issued holding that the petitioner is in possession and enjoyment of the subject land and he erected fencing around his land, apart from other aspects.

5. Having heard both the Counsel and from the perusal of the material on record, it is revealed that when the 5th respondent and his father tried to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner over the subject property, the petitioner filed OS No. 394 of 2011 for injunction simplicitor on the file of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Rajahmundry. The said suit was decreed on 7.9.2011 restraining the defendants therein and their men from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner in respect of the property in quest