The main legal point established in the judgment is that police protection cannot be extended when rights have not been determined by the civil court, and a writ for police protection has limited application to cases where the court is approached for protection of rights declared by an order passed by the court.

JUDGMENT :

ILESH J. VORA, J.

1. This application filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been preferred with the following prayers:

“(A) admit this petition.

(B) issue appropriate writ, order or direction and be pleased to direct the respondent no. 2 authorities to quash and set aside the order/communication dated 11.02.2021 passed by the respondent no. 2 and be pleased to direct respondent no. 2 to grant police protection for a period of at least 60 days at the expenses of State and the same may be provided on other terms as may be deemed fit by this Hon’ble Court.

(C) pass such orders as thought fit in the interest of justice.”

2. It is the case of the applicant that, he is owner of land bearing Survey No. 308/Paiki/1(359), which is situated at Village Hajipur, District Sabarkantha. The land bearing Survey No. 234/Paiki/1/2, owned by Patel Yogesh Rambhai and Dave Kamlesh Jivanlal is adjacent to the land of the applicant. The land owner of the adjacent land has developed housing units in the name of “Shri Ville Bungalow.” The developer and owner of the adjacent land, have illegally made encroachment on the land of the applicant and have constructed road for access of the purchaser of the bungalow. It is the case of the applicant that, the developer and land owner who have made encroachment are head strong persons and in connivance with the Village Sarpanch and Government Officials, constructed the road without any authority and/or legal title. In order to protect his right over the land, the applicant has filed three different suits namely RCS No. 27 of 2016, RCS No. 49 of 2017 and RCS No. 105 of 2020, which are pending before the Civil Courts, Himmatnagar.

3. In the aforesaid facts, the applicant herein had filed an application dated 19.11.2020, addressed to D.S.P. Sabarkantha at Himmatnagar to provide police protection so as to enable him to carry out fencing work over the disputed land. The police authority vide communication dated 11.02.2021, did not consider the prayer of police protection mainly on the ground that, three civil suits on the subject matter are pending before the Court concerned.

4. Mr. V.A. Pujara, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that, the applicant is the owner of the alleged land and measurement and rough sketch, undertaken by the District Inspector of Land Records, clearly establish that, the adjacent land owner and developer have made encroachment upon the land of the applicant and have illegally constructed road over the land which action on the part of the persons, is illegal and is in violation of his legal rights. He urged that, the applicant having reasonable apprehension of his life and liberty and if protection as prayed is not granted, the persons who have made encroachment would assault him physically. He further urged that, the Village Sarpanch and Government Officials are not discharging their duties properly and therefore, the applicant could not carry out fencing work over the disputed land. In such circumstances, applicant had submitted an application for deployment of the police personnel so as to enable him to carry out fencing work. However, the police authority, without application of mind straightway rejected the application, inter alia, stating that, the civil suits are pending and due to pendency of the civil suits, they cannot provide police protection to carry out the fencing work.

5. In view of the aforesaid facts, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that, the respondent authorities are duty bound to provide police protection to the applicant and his property, but since they have failed to discharge their statutory duties, the applicant is invoking extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, case is made out for exercising the jurisdiction to grant necessary relief.

6. Countering the said submission, learned APP Mrs. Krina Calla, submitted th