THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITION No.4345 OF 2018

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 appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the respondent Nos. 2 to 8 in not providing police protection in spite of the orders dated 08.12.2011 in CC No. 178 of 2011 of this Hon’ble High Court and also representations of the petitioner from the respondent Nos.9 to 24 and their henchmen as illegal, arbitrary, unjust and consequently direct the respondent Nos.2 to 8 to take action on the petitioners complaint and grant police protection to the petitioner and their activities of agriculture in his agricultural land admeasuring Ac. 39.22 gnts., in Sy.No. 62/6, 62/7, 62/8, 63/4, 63/5 and 63/6 of Tammaram Village, Chintalapalem Mandal, Suryapet District and to pass......”

2. Heard Mr.V.V.Ramana, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.D.Pradeep, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 8.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent Nos. 2 to 8 failed to provide police protection despite the orders dated 08.12.2011 passed by this Court in C.C. No. 178 of 2011. He further submits that, during the pendency of the present writ petition, respondent No. 4/Tahsildar, in coordination with the police authorities, executed the certificate of delivery of possession with respect to the re-transferred land on 26.12.2011, pursuant to which the petitioner is now in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said property.

4. However, learned counsel submits that certain private respondents, specifically respondent Nos. 9 to 24, have been interfering with the petitioner’s possession from time to time. Consequently, the petitioner made representations to the police authorities seeking protection. It is therefore prayed that this Court may issue a direction to the police to extend protection to the petitioner as and when any interference with possession occurs at the instance of respondent Nos. 9 to 24. Learned counsel contends that such a direction would enable the petitioner to continue to enjoy peaceful possession of the property and accordingly prays for appropriate orders.

5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home submits that the directions of this Court in C.C. No. 178 of 2011 have been duly complied with. The possession of the property has been delivered to the petitioner in coordination with the revenue authorities, thereby satisfying the order of this Court. However, he opposes the petitioner’s request for issuance of a perpetual direction for police protection, submitting that such a direction would not be legally sustainable.

6. I have perused the material available on record.

7. The grievance of the petitioner is that despite the orders of this Court in the contempt case, the respondent authorities failed to provide police protection. However, the fair admission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner clearly indicates that the directions of this Court were indeed complied with the revenue authorities, with the assistance of the police, executed the delivery of possession under due panchanama and mediators’ report, and the petitioner is presently in possession of the property.

8. In view of the above, it is evident that the prayer of the petitioner for implementation of the earlier order has been effectively redressed. The further request for a continuous or standing direction to the police to provide protection “as and when” interference occurs is not legally tenable, as such an order would amount to granting a blanket writ direction without there being an existing cause of action. As observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked to anticipate future contingencies or to issue preventive directions of an indefinite nature (State of Bihar v. P.P. Sharma, 1992 Supp (1) SCC

222)