THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITION No.41093 OF 2017

O R D E R:

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India seeking the following relief/s:-

“…to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring that the action of the respondents 2 to 5 in collusion with the respondents 6 to 13 in not giving protection to safeguard the possession of the petitioner over the agricultural land Sy.No.234 to an extent of Ac.2.28 gts., in Sy.No.224/E to an extent of Ac.0.18 gts., and in Sy.No.226 to an extent of Ac.0.05 gts., situated in single block at Buggabaigudem village, Vemulapally Mandal, Nalgonda District in the light of the injunction decree in 0.S.No.112 of 2013 dated 29-10-2013 and also order in E.P.No.64 of 2014 in 0.S.No.112 of 2013, dated 13-10-2016 granted by the Learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Miryalguda and in threatening the petitioner not to enter into his property at the instance of the respondents

6 to 13 is highly arbitrary, bad and illegal......”

2. Heard Mr.P.Prabhakar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.D.Pradeep, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 5.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present writ petition has been filed seeking appropriate directions against the inaction of respondent Nos.2 to 5/police authorities, who, in alleged collusion with the unofficial respondents, failed to provide police protection to safeguard the petitioner’s possession over the petition schedule property, despite the subsistence of a decree in O.S. No.112 of 2013 passed by the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Miryalaguda.

4. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner had earlier instituted E.P. No.64 of 2014 for execution of the said decree, including a prayer for the arrest and civil imprisonment of the judgment debtors, which was ordered by the executing court. However, despite the subsisting decree and the execution proceedings, the judgment debtors once again interfered with the petitioner’s possession and caused damage to the property. Based on the police report in this regard, a criminal case was registered and prosecution initiated. Nevertheless, the respondent police authorities, despite being aware of the decree and the pendency of criminal proceedings, failed to exercise their discretion in extending necessary police protection to safeguard the petitioner’s lawful possession. Hence, the present writ petition is filed seeking appropriate directions from this Court.

5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home submits that, pursuant to the police report, Crime No.227 of 2017 was registered and is presently pending trial before the Court of the learned III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Miryalaguda. However, he fairly submits that there are no specific instructions as to whether any police protection has been granted to the petitioner to safeguard the petition schedule property.

6. I have perused the material placed on record.

7. The essence of the petitioner’s contention is that the police authorities have failed to provide protection to enforce and safeguard the decree in O.S. No.112 of 2013. However, it is evident from the pleadings that the petitioner has not approached the executing court seeking specific directions for police aid in execution of the decree. The issue regarding whether a writ petition is maintainable to seek police protection for implementation of a civil court decree, without exhausting the remedies available before the executing court, is no longer res integra.

8. It is a well-settled principle of law that the execution of decrees, including the enforcement of possession orders, must be sought through the procedure prescribed under Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC). Rule 32 and Rule 97 of Order XXI, CPC, specifically provide for remedies in cases of obstruction or resistance to execution, and the executing co