Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : K.MADHAVA REDDY, PUNNAIAH
SATYANARAYANA TIWARI - Appellant
Versus
S.H.O.P.S.Santhoshanagar, Hyderabad - Respondent
Decided On : 06-14-82
INJUNCTION - POSSESSION - POLICE ASSISTANCE - DUTY OF POLICE TO ENFORCE COURT ORDERS - WRIT OF MANDAMUS - JURISDICTION OF HIGH COURT UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant sought a writ of mandamus or other appropriate direction against the police officers to render police help to him in maintaining his possession of the suit land as per the directions issued by the civil court. The police, however, refused to provide assistance, and the appellant filed a writ petition in the High Court.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the orders of the civil court prevail on the question of possession and that the police are bound to enforce such orders. The court further held that the High Court has ample jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ or direction to all the authorities including the police within the state to enforce the order of the Civil Court as confirmed by the High court in a Civil Revision Petition and maintain the Rule of law.
Issues: 1. Whether the police are bound to enforce the orders of the civil court? 2. Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to issue a writ or direction to the police to enforce the orders of the civil court?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The orders of the civil court prevail on the question of possession, and any anterior or subsequent enquiry and finding of the police or any other authority cannot nullify the finding of the civil court. 2. The High Court has ample jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ or direction to all the authorities including the police within the state to enforce the order of the Civil Court as confirmed by the High court in a Civil Revision Petition and maintain the Rule of law.
Final Decision: The High Court allowed the writ appeal, set aside the order of the learned single Judge, and issued a direction to the police to enforce the order of the civil court as confirmed by the High court in a Civil Revision Petition.
( 2 ) IT is the grievance of the appellant that since the writ petition was disposed and the police is not rendering any help, respondents 4 and 5 are trying to take the law into their own hands and dispossess him.
( 3 ) THE legal position as observed by the learned single Judge does not admit of any doubt that the orders of the Civil Court prevail on the question of possession. Any anterior or subsequent enquiry and finding of the police or any other authority cannot nullify the finding of the civil court especially when that finding has been upheld by this court by dismissing the Civil Revision Petition. The only authority that can vary that finding is the Supreme Court. None of the parties in this case have moved the Supreme Court questioning the dismissal of the Civil Revision Petition. That being the position no authority in the State, revenue or pol ce, can ignore the finding of the Civil Court or refuse to take steps to see that the order of the civil court is implemented and the party, in whose favour there is the order of the civil court gets all help to maintain his possession. It is by that method that the police have to maintain the law and order and not allow the other party to contravene the injunction order and create a law and order problem.
( 4 ) MR. Jagannadha Rao, lear
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.