JUDGMENT : 1. By filing this application under Articles 14, 21, 226 and 300A of the Constitution of India, the applicant has prayed as under:- “(A) YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondents not to grant Police Protection to Respondents No.5 for the said lands in view of the civil litigation pending between the parties i.e. Petitioner and the Respondent No.5; (B) YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondent 1 to 4 to implement the circular/notification dated 28.2.2011 and 10.5.2011 issued by the Director General of Police; (C) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to direct the Respondent(s) by appropriate writ, orders or directions to provide Police Protection of life and property(ies) to the Petitioner and family of the Petitioner and also take preventive measures and actions against respondent no.5 so that the Petitioner(s) can live peacefully and safely and can do their day to day work;” 2. It is the case of the applicant that respondent no.5 has claimed to be the owner of the property bearing Survey No.1050, 1058 and 1060 admeasuring about 5251 sq.mtrs., 4856 sq.mtrs. and 37424 sq.mtrs. situated in the sim of Nandej, Taluka-Dascroi, District-Ahmedabad. The applicant states that he is in possession of the said land and cultivating it since last more than 50 years. Respondent no.5 herein filed Regular Civil Suit No.625 of 2005 for declaration and permanent injunction for the said land, which came to be dismissed vide judgment dated 6.9.2011. Against said judgment, Regular Civil Appeal No.42 of 2011 was preferred, wherein the lower appellate Court vide order dated 15.01.2011 directed both the parties to maintain status-quo, however, said appeal is pending for adjudication. The applicant herein has also filed Civil Suit No.393 of 2016 before District Court, Ahmedabad, with regard to the same land and it is pending. In the meantime, respondent no.5 made an application for granting police protection to respondent no.4 for measurement and to construct compound wall upon the said land. The applicant herein has also filed Civil Suit No.393 of 2016 before District Court, Ahmedabad, with regard to the same land and it is pending. In the meantime, respondent no.5 made an application for granting police protection to respondent no.4 for measurement and to construct compound wall upon the said land. Against which the applicant herein raised objection and stated that the matter is pending before the competent Court and with mala fide intention of creating chaos and taking possession of the land respondent no.5 has made such application so that a complaint can be filed against present applicant. Vide letters/orders dated 8.8.2016 and 16.6.2016, respondent no.2 directed respondent no.3 to give report considering the allegations and representation made by the applicant as to whether police protection is to be granted to respondent no.5 or not. Respondent no.3 recorded the statement of the applicant herein, wherein it is stated that the appeal preferred by respondent no.5 is pending and status-quo is granted upon the land in question, inspite of this to create some dispute and to take possession of the land and to create boundary walls, respondent no.5 has given such application. In view of this, the applicant has approached this Court for protection of life and liberty of the applicant. 3. Heard Mr.Vishal Dave, learned advocate for the applicant, Ms.Monali Bhatt, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1-State and Ms.Trusha Patel, learned advocate for respondent no.5. 4. Mr.Vishal Dave, learned advocate for the applicant submitted that Civil Suit No.625 of 2005 filed by respondent no.5 was rejected, against which Civil Appeal No.42 of 2011 has been preferred and the lower appellate Court has directed both the parties to maintain status-quo vide its order dated 15.10.2011, however, with a mala fide intention of taking over possession of the said land, respondent no.5 has given such application for police protection. He further submitted that the police has no jurisdiction to receive such complaints of civil dispute and the police can interfere in such dispute only if such dispute would lead to commission of cognizable offence or there is a direction by the Court, and a Notification is also issued by Director General of Police in this regard, which is annexed with the present application. Against the application given by respondent no.5, present applicant has given representation, which is pending and statement of the applicant is recorded in this regard by respondent no.3. He further submitted that when there is order of status-quo granted by the competent Court, it is not incumbent upon the police to grant protection to respondent no.5 for putting up a boundary wall. It is also submitted that the respondent no.5 can approach the concerned appellate Court, if he has any grievance, however, by approaching police, respondent no.5 is try to grab the possession of the land in question. In support of his submissions, he has relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in P R Murlidharan v. Swami Dharamanda Theertha Padar reported in (2006) 4 SCC 501 . Considering all these circumstances, he prayed to allow present application by granting the prayer made in the application. 5. Ms.Trusha Patel, learned advocate for respondent no.5 has opposed present petition. She submitted that the present petition is an abuse of process of law and it is a counter-blast to the complaint given by the answering respondent against the applicant. She submitted that correct facts are not placed before this Court and on 25.10.1983 an agreement to sell was executed in favour of Rajendrabhai Patel, however, the applicant herein along with others started harassing said Rajendrabhai on the basis of a concocted unregistered deed, on a stamp paper which was allegedly purchased in the name of one Kantilal Chimanlal for Chandulal Pitambardas by one Virsand Bhagwandas, however, as per the statement of Stamp Inspector, said stamp was issued in the name of Solanki Navinchandra Chunilal. This fact was observed by trial Judge in order below Exh.5, thereafter, the applicant and others had undertaken that they would not be entering into the suit land and in view of such settlement, the suit was disposed of on the basis of a purshis. In Tenancy proceedings, father of the applicant herein had deposed that he was not a tenant of lands in question and all the authorities have concluded that neither the applicant nor his father was tenant in the land in question. On 13.9.2005, respondent no.5 filed Regular Civil Suit No.625 of 2005 against the present applicant and others seeking permanent injunction not to disturb the possession of the respondent no.5. On 13.9.2005, respondent no.5 filed Regular Civil Suit No.625 of 2005 against the present applicant and others seeking permanent injunction not to disturb the possession of the respondent no.5. On 29.2.2007, Exh.5 application was allowed and despite grant of injunction the defendants were harassing respondent no.5, hence, application Exh.74 was filed seeking police protection. On 21.4.2008, trial Court allowed said application against which the applicant herein had preferred Civil Misc. Appeal No.72 of 2008, which was dismissed on 3.12.2008. Special Civil Application preferred against such order was also dismissed by this Court. On 9.9.2011 suit filed by respondent no.5 came to be dismissed against which respondent no.5 has preferred Regular Civil Appeal No.42 of 2011, wherein the District Court stayed order dated 9.9.2011 dismissing the suit. 6. Thereafter, the applicant herein and others had started harassing the respondent no.5, for which various complaints were filed against them. Ms.Patel submitted that the applicant herein was never in possession of the land in question. She submitted that so far as Civil Suit No.393 of 2016 filed by the applicant herein is concerned, no relief is granted in the said suit. She submitted that the land in question is already in possession of respondent no.5, therefore, there is no question of asking for police protection to take over the possession of the land. She submitted that earlier barbed wire fencing was there on the land in question and as it required repeated repairs, respondent no.5 has decided to fence the boundary with cement sheets. She submitted that allegation with regard to non-consideration of objections of the applicant is incorrect. She further submitted that the police protection was given with a view to see that law and order situation is maintained and it was not given to assist respondent no.5 in constructing the compound wall. She submitted that the applicant is a a headstrong person and has attacked respondent no.5 on various occasions. In view of all these, she prayed to dismiss present application. 7. Ms.Monali Bhatt, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1-State has submitted that the police authorities have acted as per law and the prevailing circulars/notification and she has nothing further to say with regard to the merits or otherwise of the case on hand. 8. In view of all these, she prayed to dismiss present application. 7. Ms.Monali Bhatt, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1-State has submitted that the police authorities have acted as per law and the prevailing circulars/notification and she has nothing further to say with regard to the merits or otherwise of the case on hand. 8. Having considered the submissions made on behalf of the respective parties and considering the materials placed on record, it appears that there is civil dispute going on between the parties regarding ownership and possession of the land in question. It also reveals that there was litigation before the Revenue Tribunal regarding tenancy rights and also before the Civil Court. The parties have filed the suits against each other. It also reveals that in earlier litigation filed by the original owner, who was tenant at the relevant time, the applicant herein has affirmed that possession is with that owner. It also reveals from the record of the tenancy matters that in those proceedings also, the present applicant has failed. It appears that the suit filed by respondent no.5 for permanent injunction against the applicant has been dismissed by the trial Court on the basis that when the agreement to sell was executed, the land was of new tenure land and, therefore, the agreement to sell cannot give any legal title to the plaintiff i.e. respondent no.5. However, it was observed therein that possession is with respondent no.5 and against dismissal of the suit, he has preferred an appeal before the District Court, wherein order of status quo has been granted by the appellate Court. Thus, there is a judicial order in existence for maintaining status quo on the suit land. 9. Now, it has been contended by learned advocate Ms.Trusha Patel for respondent no.5 that the order of status quo does not mean that he cannot carry out any agricultural operations in the land in question. According to her, putting up fencing will not change the nature of the land. However, this submission is not tenable in the eye of law, as by putting up fencing on the disputed land it will affect the nature of the land, which may not be permitted without any order from the concerned lower appellate Court. According to her, putting up fencing will not change the nature of the land. However, this submission is not tenable in the eye of law, as by putting up fencing on the disputed land it will affect the nature of the land, which may not be permitted without any order from the concerned lower appellate Court. Respondent no.5 would have approached the lower appellate Court for putting up fencing in the suit land, when the matter is already pending before it. 10. It also appears from record that when the suit was pending before the trial Court this very respondent no.5 has filed an application for getting police protection and that application was allowed by the trial Court, which was challenged by the applicant before the lower appellate Court as well as before this Court but the same order was upheld. Of course, during hearing of that petition, the undertaking was given by respondent no.5 to the effect that if any fencing is carried out then in case of dismissal of the suit, he may not claim any equity. Now, that order of the trial Court is merged in the final judgment of the trial Court, therefore, the order passed below Exh.74 in the suit may not survive after dismissal of the suit. Respondent no.5 could have approached the lower appellate Court for seeking necessary police protection as has been done by him pending the suit before the trial Court. 11. A perusal of the application for police protection, it appears that he sought police protection for the purpose of putting RCC fencing around the suit land and the police has mechanically granted the same, without taking into consideration that the Civil Appeal is still pending and there is an order of status quo passed by the appellate Court. 12. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances, it is clearly found that there is substance in the say of the present applicant that the police authority should not have granted protection mechanically and respondent no.5 could have approached the appellate Court for seeking police protection by preferring an application. 12. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances, it is clearly found that there is substance in the say of the present applicant that the police authority should not have granted protection mechanically and respondent no.5 could have approached the appellate Court for seeking police protection by preferring an application. Therefore, in view of the civil litigation pending between the parties and order of status quo granted therein, this application is allowed so far as prayer (A) is concerned and, it is directed that no police protection be given to respondent no.5 for the land in question, however, it is open for respondent no.5 to approach the lower appellate Court for this purpose. 13. So far as the claim of the present applicant for getting police protection for their life and family is concerned, they can also approach the appellate Court seeking such police protection. Therefore, prayer (C) made in this application seeking direction to provide Police Protection of life and property(ies) to the petitioner and family of the Petitioner cannot be granted. 14. Resultantly, present application is partly allowed. Rule is made absolute accordingly.