Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 250 (AP)

T. Allah Bakash v. State of Andhra Pradesh

2019-09-24

G.SHYAM PRASAD

body2019
ORDER : G. Shyam Prasad, J. 1. This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking police aid for implementation of permanent injunction orders dated 29.4.2019 granted in OS No. 61 of 2012 on the file of the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Adoni, Kurnool District in respect of the land admeasuring Acs. 5.77 cents in Sy. No. 187, situated at Mekadona Village, Pedda Kadabur Mandal, Kurnool District. 2. The relief sought against the official respondents-police is that they should give protection to the petitioner in respect of the civil Court decree in his favour, to restraint the respondents 7 to 13 from interfering with peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner in respect of the land admeasuring Acs. 5.77 cents, in Survey No. 187, situated at Mekadona Village. 3. The petitioner claims that he is the absolute owner and processor of agricultural land to an extent of Acs. 6.83 cents in Sy. No. 187 of the above said village. During the lifetime of his grandfather and father, an extent of Ac. 0.10 cents out of the total extent of Acs. 6.83 cents was kept aside for the purpose of burial ground to their family members as there was no land available to bury the dead bodies of Muslim community. His grandfather and his father have allotted Ac. 1.06 cents out of the said total extent of land for the purpose of burial ground for the Muslim community on pious obligation. The land in the above survey number is purely a private land. The revenue authorities have mutated their names in the revenue records from time to time and issued passbooks and title deeds an adangals in their favour. 4. The respondents 7 to 13 have started interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner's remaining land of Acs. 5.77 cents in Survey No. 187 and trying to encroach into their land for the purpose of burial ground. The above respondents went there to bury a dead body of a person belongs to the Muslim community in the middle of the land claiming that the land in the entire survey number is covered by burial ground by denying the right of the petitioner. The above respondents went there to bury a dead body of a person belongs to the Muslim community in the middle of the land claiming that the land in the entire survey number is covered by burial ground by denying the right of the petitioner. At that juncture, the petitioner has filed a suit in OS No. 61 of 2012 on the file of the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Adoni, Kurnool District, for declaration and perpetual injunction of the suit schedule property of an extent of Acs. 5.77 cents out of Acs. 6.83 cents in Survey No. 187 of Mekadona Village, Pedda Kadabur Mandal, Kurnool District, and sought for consequential permanent injunction restraining the respondents 6 to 13 from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject land. The suit was decreed in favour of the petitioner declaring his title and right over the schedule and granted perpetual injunction against respondents 7 to 13. Aggrieved by the orders, the respondents have preferred an appeal in AS No. 26 of 2019 on the file of the Court of II Additional District Judge, Adoni. The lower appellate Court has not granted any stay or suspension of judgment and decree of the Court below. 5. While the petitioner was attending to agricultural operations in the subject land, the respondents 7 to 13 have interfered with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioner's land and tried to violate the permanent injunction order by demolishing the fencing. Therefore, the petitioner made representations dated 20.6.2019 and 21.6.2019 to the respondents 3 to 6 for providing protection, by police aid for effective implementation of the perpetual injunction orders, but the respondents 3 to 6 have refused to consider the request of implementation of order of the Court. Hence, the present writ petition. 6. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondents 1 to 6-Police. 7. The petitioner filed the suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction against the defendants-respondents 7 to 13 and the suit was decreed in favour of the petitioner by granting permanent injunction against the unofficial respondents 7 to 13. Inspite of the orders of injunction against the respondents 7 to 13, they are still trying to interfere with the possession of the land of plaintiff. 8. Inspite of the orders of injunction against the respondents 7 to 13, they are still trying to interfere with the possession of the land of plaintiff. 8. The jurisdiction of this Court can be invoked under Article 226 the Constitution of India, whenever there is a violation of fundamental right. The petitioner's contention is that though the petitioner has got a decree of a competent Court in his favour, the same could not be executed, as the police have not provided protection to him for implementing the order of decree of the civil Court. 9. In fact, there is no specific procedure contemplated under law for implementation of the injunction orders either by the civil Courts or by the police agency, except for disobedience of interim order under Order 39 Rule 2-A of CPC and to approach police in case commission of any criminal acts. Whenever there is any infringement of a civil right of the petitioner, he may go to a civil Court. In case any offence is committed, he may approach the police by lodging a report. He may also approach the Jurisdictional Magistrate Court by way of a private complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. in case if his complaint is not registered by the police. 10. The petitioner has a right to approach the police for redressal of his grievance in case of violation of his life and liberty including the possession and enjoyment of the land as per the order and decree granted by the Court below. His rights recognized by any Court are to be protected. 11. No doubt the petitioner has got a decree in his favour, but however, an appeal is pending against the decree, before an appellate Court. If any incident takes place in the meanwhile like trespass, or interference with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the schedule property by committing any offence, which attracts any of the provisions of the Indian Penal Code, the petitioner is always at liberty to file a complaint to the police. Under such circumstances, the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner and his life and liberty are to be protected in the light of the decree of the competent civil Court, by following due process of law. 12. Precisely, the petitioner is seeking police protection for implementation of the decree of the civil Court. Under such circumstances, the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner and his life and liberty are to be protected in the light of the decree of the competent civil Court, by following due process of law. 12. Precisely, the petitioner is seeking police protection for implementation of the decree of the civil Court. The contention of the petitioner is that the respondents 7 to 13 are interfering with peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner in respect of the land as shown in the plaint schedule in an extent of Acs. 5.77 cents in Survey No. 187. 13. The petitioner has submitted representations on 20.6.2019 and 21.6.2019 to the respondents 1 to 6, but no action has been taken so far. The petitioner may lodge a complaint to the police, if any offence of tress or any other offence is committed. 14. On consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, since the petitioner has already submitted representations to the police for consideration of his request for protecting his possession by implementing the injunction orders granted by the civil Court, the police shall consider the same in accordance with law. The petitioner is at liberty to file a fresh complaint to the police in respect of any subsequent events and the same be considered and appropriate action be taken in accordance with law. 15. With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of keeping it open to the petitioner to give a complaint to the police whenever an incident attracting any of the offences under the provision of Indian Penal Code in respect of his peaceful possession and enjoyment of his land. It is needless to say that the petitioner has got a remedy in a civil Court seeking for execution of the decree. The respondents 2 to 6 shall consider the representations made by the petitioner on 20.6.2019 and 21.6.2019, in the light of the guidelines in Lalita Kumari v. Government of U.P., 2014 (1) ALD (Crl.) 159 (SC) : (2014) 2 SCC 1 and take appropriate action in accordance with law. No costs. 16. Miscellaneous petitions pending if any, shall stand closed.