ORDER:

The petitioner prays for writ of mandamus declaring the inaction of 3rd respondent to provide police protection to the petitioner’s life and property from the hands of 4th respondent as illegal and for a consequential direction to 3rd respondent to provide police aid.

2. The petitioner’s case, succinctly, is thus:

(a) The petitioner is the owner of the vacant house site bearing D.No.449/B in an extent of 484 sq. yards in Nuzendla Village and Mandal purchased from Koppuravuri Kasi Viswanadham and others under a registered document bearing No.7326/2017 dated 08.11.2017. The petitioner intended to develop the said property and started operations. However, the respondent No.4 without having any right, interfered with the said property and tried to intervene. The petitioner with the assistance of his men could resist the illegal act of the respondent No.4 and his henchmen. Later, when the 4th respondent tried to encroach into petitioner’s land, the petitioner lodged a complaint with 3rd respondent, but he refused to register the case on the ground that the dispute is a civil matter. Hence, the petitioner was constrained to file O.S.No.17/2021 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Vinukonda. The 4th respondent did not turn up and remained ex parte. Hence, the trial Court after taking the evidence of plaintiff, passed a permanent injunction decree in favour of the petitioner.

(b) In spite of the decree, the 4th respondent and his henchmen have been trying to meddle with the property of the petitioner by using criminal force.

Therefore, the petitioner again approached the 3rd respondent for granting police aid, but he refused to extend the protection.

Hence, the writ petition.

3. On the direction of this Court, the petitioner served notice on the 4th respondent and filed proof of service. There is no representation for 4th respondent.

4. Heard arguments of learned counsel for petitioner Sri N.V.R.Amarnath and learned Assistant Government Pleader (AGP) for Home representing the respondents 1 to 3.

5. Learned counsel for petitioner would submit that in spite of Civil Court granting perpetual injunction decree in favour of the petitioner, the 4th respondent who is unruly, is trying to meddle with petitioner’s property by causing threat to petitioner’s life and limb. When a competent Court grants a decree declaring the right of a person in respect of a property, it is the bounden duty of the police to extend protection to the decree holder to enjoy the fruits of the decree without any threat from the defendant or his henchmen. However, the 3rd respondent refused to extend protection in spite of the decree. Therefore, this Court may give direction to the 3rd respondent to extend police protection to the petitioner. He placed reliance on Subrtamanya v. Principal Secretary, Home Department, Hyderabad1 to submit that the plenary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can be invoked by a party to seek police protection for implementation of the rights granted to him under a civil decree.

1MANU/HY/0725/2018 = 2020 (4) ALT 62

6. Learned AGP for Home, on written instructions, would submit that unless a specific direction is given by the Court, the police are not competent to redress the issue of the petitioner. He would further submit that the writ petition is not maintainable and the petitioner has to take recourse before the Civil Court. He place reliance on Polvarapu Nagamani v. Parchuri Koteshwara Rao2 and Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. The Station House Officer3.

7. The point for consideration is whether there are merits in the writ petition to allow?

8. Point: On factual side, the petitioner obtained decree against the 4th respondent in O.S.No.17/2021 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Vinukonda. The judgment dated 09.03.2022 shows that a suit was filed by the petitioner seeking perpetual injunction against the respondent restraining him and his men from interfering with peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff ov