IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established is that in cases where a decree has been passed, the party seeking enforcement should avail the remedies available under the Civil Procedure Code, rather than seeking police protection through a writ petition.

ORDER :

1. This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed by the petitioners seeking the following relief:

“.......to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, declaring the action of the respondents 1 to 4 herein not providing Police protection to safeguard our possession over the land bearing Sy. No. 771/E2 admeasuring an extent of Ac. 0.31 gts situated at Kandi village and Gram Panchayat, Kandi Mandal, Sangareddy district, for which our vendor filed a Suit bearing O.S. No. 55/2017 on the file of the Special Judge for trial of offences under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1980 cum V Addl. Sessions Judge, Medak at Sangareddy against the respondents 5 and 6 herein for grant of perpetual injunction and obtained decree of permanent injunction vide Judgment and decree dated 9.2.2018, which has become final, as no appeal is filed against the said order, as illegal and arbitrary and contrary to the dicta laid down by this Hon'ble Court in Satyanarayana Tiwari vs. SHO, P.S. Santhoshanagar, AIR 1982 A.P. 394 [dated 14th June, 1982] (Division Bench) and for a consequential direction to the respondents 1 to 4 to grant them Police protection to safeguard our possession over the land bearing Sy. No. 771/E2 admeasuring an extent of Ac. 0.31 gts situated at Kandi village and Gram Panchayat, Kandi Mandal, Sangareddy district pursuant to the decree granted by the Civil Court in O.S. No. 55/2017, dated 9.2.2018 against the respondents 5 and 6 herein......”

2. It is the case of petitioners that originally Smt. Mallepally Narsamma, was the owner and possessor of property admeasuring Ac. 0-31gts in Sy. No. 771/E2, situated at Kandi Village and Mandal, Sangareddy. It is further case of the petitioners that when the respondent Nos. 5 and 6 herein interfered with the possession of said Mallepally Narsamma, she filed a suit vide O.S. No. 55 of 2017 on the file of the Special Judge for trial of offences under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1980-cum-V Additional Sessions Judge, Medak at Sangareddy, seeking perpetual injunction and the said suit was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 09.02.2018 granting perpetual injunction restraining the respondent Nos. 5 and 6 herein from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of said Mallepally Narsamma over the subject property. As the respondent Nos. 5 and 6 herein did not prefer any appeal, the said judgment and decree has become final. It is further case of the petitioners that they purchased the subject property from said Smt. Mallepally Narsamma and others under registered sale deed dated 19.05.2018 bearing document No. 18720/2018 and possession was also delivered to them.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has vehemently contended that even after passing of the judgment and decree dated 09.02.2018 in O.S. No. 55 of 2017 in favour of Smt. Mallepally Narsamma, vendor of the petitioners, the respondent Nos. 5 and 6 are interfering with the possession of the petitioners over the subject property. When the petitioners approached respondent No. 4 and sought police aid to safeguard their possession, the police refused the petitioners’ request on the premise that there is no police protection order in their favour from the Competent Court.

4. Per contra, the learned Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 4 has submitted that except approaching the police, the petitioners have not obtained any orders either from the Court of the Special Judge for trial of offences under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1980-cum-V Additional Sessions Judge, Medak at Sangareddy, which has passed the judgment and decree dated 09.02.2018 in O.S. No. 55 of 2017 or from this Court granting police protection. Since there was no specific direction from the competent civil Court, the respondents-poli