Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 cannot be used to adjudicate disputed civil rights or facts; however, police authorities are obligated to consider and dispose of representations for protection in accordance with the law.

The Court made the following:

ORDER:

The Writ Petition has been filed for the following relief:

“…to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in not considering our representation dated 27.1.2026 to provide police protection to thepetitionersandtheirpropertybeinganextentofAc.0.16 centsoflandoutof Ac.3.10 centsin Sy.No.1661/2of Botlagatia Village, PutchanuthalaPanchayat, Nuzendia Mandal, Palnadu District from the highhanded acts of the 4th respondent and his henchmen as illegal and violative of Articles 14 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents 2 and 3 to providepolice protection/aidtothepetitionersandtheirpropertyforthwith…”

2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioners and the learned Assistant Government Pleader.

3. Mr. Kochiri Raja Shekar, learned counsel for the Petitioners, submits that by Judgment and decree dated 03.06.1996, the learned Munsif Magistrate, Vinukonda, in O.S. No.12 of 1988, granted specific performance of the agreement along with consequential relief of permanent injunction. Later, at the behest of respondent No.4 and his followers, the petitioners’ right of enjoyment of the immovable property was infringed by third parties and respondent No.4.

4. The learned Counsel for the Petitioners relied on the decision of a learned Single Judge of this Court in Vanaparthi Subramanyam v. State of A.P ¹W.P.No.20555/2022 wherein at paragraph No.11 it is held as under:

“11. It is well settled law that when a permanent injunction decree was passed by the competent civil Court, the plaintiff in the said suit is entitled for grant of police aid either by an order passed by the Court which passed the said decree or by an order passed by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 226 of the Constitution of India. The law in this regard is not res integra and the same has been dealt with inthe case of Rai Naramma v. State of Andhra Pradesh .,²2021(1) ALT 426 wherein this Courtheldatpara7asfollows:

“7. It is now well settled law that only when there is a decree for permanent injunction and only when there is an order of temporary injunction in an interlocutory application which is made absolute after hearingboththeparties,thenonlytheCourtsusuallyeitherthecivilCourt or the Writ Court, would grant police aid for effective implementation of the said permanent injunction decree or a temporary injunction order which is passed on merits. But when the ex parte ad-interim injunction is granted without hearing the respondents and when the same is not made absolute granting atemporary injunction order,till thedisposal of the suit, on merits, the Courts will not usually order for grant of police aid for implementation of the ex parte ad-interim injunction order. Since it is not an order on merits after hearing both the parties, the Courts would be very slow in granting police aid, till the possession and rights of the partiesaredeterminedafterenquirybasedonevidence.”.”

5. Sri P.Ajay Babu, learned Assistant Government Pleader, on written instructions, submits that there is no order from the learned Civil Court granting police protection to the Petitioners.

6. The learned Assistant Government Pleader relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in P.R. Murlidharan v. Swami Dharmananda Theertha Padar ³3(2006) 4 SCC 501, 2026:APHC:19191, wherein at paragraph Nos.12, 18 & 19 held as under:

“12. It is one