Civil court orders regarding possession take precedence over informal police actions; police are required to provide protection for enforcing valid civil court injunctions.

ORDER :

(T. VINOD KUMAR, J.)

The present Writ Petition is filed questioning the action of the respondents in not providing the police protection for implementation of the injunction order dt.04.12.2019 passed in I.A.No.30 of 2019 in O.S.No.8 of 2019 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Shadnagar, Ranga Reddy District, in respect of the land in Sy.No.366 admeasuring Ac.0.20 guntas situated at Ayushmati Vanam (A.F.L.54) at Raikal Village, Farooqnagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District and also to declare the action of respondent Nos.3 and 4 in seizing the JCB bearing No.AP 21 N 8460 on 19.01.2020 used for making construction and for removal of construction and also for removal of some structures in the land of the petitioner, in Crime No.38 of 2020 on the file of P.S.Shadnagar, Ranga Reddy District, as illegal, arbitrary and consequently to direct the respondents police officials to provide necessary protection to the petitioner.

2. Heard Sri A.Prabhakar Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 4 and perused the record.

3. Having regard to the manner of disposal of the Writ Petition at the admission stage and the lis involved, this Court is of the view that notice to unofficial respondent Nos.5 to 7 is not necessary for adjudication of the present Writ Petition.

4. Briefly stated, the case of the petitioner is that he is the owner and possessor of the land in Sy.No.366 admeasuring Ac.0.20 guntas situated at Ayushmati Vanam at Raikal Village, Farooqnagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, having purchased the same under registered sale deed dt.30.01.2016 bearing document No.1160/2016 from B.Bharath Reddy s/o late B.P.Reddy; that after purchasing the property, the same was mutated in the name of petitioner and revenue officials have issued a pattadar passbook and title deeds in favour of the petitioner after conducting necessary enquiry as provided under the Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971 and the Rules made thereunder; and that the petitioner thereafter applied to the executing officer to grant permission for construction of compound wall which has been duly granted.

5. Petitioner further contends that on the petitioner starting construction in the land, his vendor started interfering with the construction; that the petitioner filed a suit, vide O.S.No.8 of 2019 in the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Shadnagar, seeking relief of perpetual injunction against the defendants therein and also filed interlocutory application, vide I.A.No.30 of 2019 seeking grant of temporary injunction and obtained the order therein initially on 29.01.2019 which order was made absolute on 04.12.2019.

6. It is further contended by the petitioner that after the competent Court of Civil jurisdiction granting injunction, he had engaged a JCB and men for construction; that when the JCB and men engaged by the petitioner got down to work at the subject land which is subject matter of suit, vide O.S.No.8 of 2019, respondent No.3 at the behest of respondent Nos.5 to 7 have seized the JCB and other instruments on 19.01.2020; and that the respondents police officials have also warned the petitioner not to enter into the scheduled property.

7. Petitioner also contends that on obtaining injunction order initially and after the said order was made absolute, he had approached the respondents and submitted representations dt.21.08.2019, 25.08.2019 and 18.01.2020 requesting to extend police protection for implementation of the injunction order; and that the respondents police officials instead of implem