THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITION No.2702 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 writ or direction particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents No.1 to 4 in not granting police protection to the petitioners to safeguard petitioners right over the suit schedule property i.e., Agricultural dry land to an extent of Ac.4-39 guntas in Sy.No.33/21, situated at Konaraopet village of Regonda Mandal, Jayashankar Bhupalpally District is illegal, irregular and violation of principles of natural justice and consequently direct the Respondent No.5 and 6 not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the Petitioner over the suit schedule property.….”

2. I have heard Mr. G.Vijaypal Reddy, learned counsel for the petitoner Mr.G.Aniketh Reddy, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 4.

3. None appeared for the petitioner.

4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home submits that the petitioner’s prayer for grant of police protection is unsustainable, as it is neither supported by any specific order of a competent court nor by any direction from higher authorities. It is further submitted that the petitioners themselves had earlier lodged a complaint which was registered as Crime No.153 of 2013, later taken cognizance of as C.C. No.7 of 2015 against respondent Nos. 5 and 6. Moreover, the petitioners rely upon a decree of perpetual injunction granted by the Civil Court in O.S. No.65 of 2011. In such circumstances, the appropriate course for the petitioners would have been to approach the Civil Court for execution of the said decree and to seek police aid through the executing court. Instead, bypassing the statutory mechanism and invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution for police protection is legally impermissible. On this ground, dismissal of the writ petition is prayed for.

5. I have carefully perused the record.

6. The affidavit filed by the petitioners refers to the decree of permanent injunction passed by the Civil Court and to the criminal proceedings initiated against respondent Nos. 5 and 6. However, there are no specific pleadings or materials on record to show that the petitioners had approached the competent civil court or the police authorities by filing a report or application specifically seeking enforcement of the decree and consequent police protection. Mere reliance on the injunction decree, without resorting to execution proceedings, cannot be a basis for invoking the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court.

7. It is a settled principle of law that when a civil court decree exists, the appropriate remedy for enforcement lies in filing execution proceedings under Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and if necessary, seeking police aid through the executing court (K.K. Dewan v. District Magistrate, AIR 1982 SC 1475; Pratibha Singh v. Shanti Devi Prasad, (2003) 2 SCC 330). Similarly, in Kanubhai Brahmbhatt v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1990 SC 491, the Supreme Court emphasized that writ jurisdiction should not be invoked for enforcement of private civil rights when efficacious remedies exist under the statutory framework.

8. In light of these principles, it is evident that the petitioners, without exhausting the effective statutory remedies available for execution of the civil court decree, have approached this Court under Article 226 seeking police protection. In the absence of any exceptional or extraordinary circumstance such as imminent threat to life or gross failure of statutory authorities, the writ petition is not maintainable. Nonetheless, if the cause of action still survives, liberty is reserved to the petitioners to pursue the appropriate remedy before the civil court for execution of the decree and for obtaining consequential police protection