Smt. lndira Bai v. 1. The Station House Officer

B. Sri tVlal Reddy, s/o Narsi Reddy, Aged about 70 years, occ not known, 9. Smt. Parvathamma, w/o Han Reddy, Aged about 43 years, occ Housewife, l0.Smt.Lakshmi Devamma, w/o Suba Reddy, Aged about 56 years, occ Housewife, 1 1 . Sri Madusudan Reddy, s/o Han Reddy, Aged abou|27 years, occ not known,

12.Sri Rajappa, s/o Kamalaiah, Aged about not known, occ not known, Respondents No.4 to 12 are No Eerlapally Village, Bomraspet Mandal, Mahaboobnagar District Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction, more particularly a writ in the nature of Writ of MANDAMUS declaring the respondents 1to 3 in not providing police ...RESPONDENTS protection to the petitioner for entering into her lands and , ultivating the lands in Sy.Nos.18. 20, 26 and 27 admeasuring an extent of Acs 2t,34 guntas situated in Eerlapally Village, Bomraspet Mandal, tr,4ahaboobnagar t) strict, as bad, illegal, arbitra ry, opposed to law. l.A. NO: 1 OF 201s(WPMP. NO: 49314 OF 201s Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the , ri the affidavit fi{ed in support of the petition, the High Cc I DIRECT the respondents 1 and 2 to act on the represent;rl filed by the petitioner requesting for police protection frorr who are obstructing the cultivating of her lands in Sy.Nr admeasuring an extent of Acs.24-34 guntas situated I Bomraspet Mandal, Ir,4ahaboobnagar District, pending dis I cumstances stated in t may be pleased to on dated 15-06-2015 respondents 4lo 12 s 18, 20, 26 and 27 r Eerlapally Village, ,sal of the main Wnt Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI M. VIDYASAGAR Counsel for the Respondents 1 TO 3: SRI SRIDHAR BHU\r TNAGIRI, AGP FOR HOME The Court made the following: ORDER : ,'_:agej THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VAXITI RAMAKRISHNA REDDY UIRIT PETITION No.3831O of 2015 ORDER: Heard Sri M.Vidyasagar, learned counsel on rccord for the peLitioner and Sii Sridhar Bhuvanagiri, learned Assistant (iovernment Pleader for Ilomc appearing for respondent Nos. 1 to 3.

2. This Writ Petition is filed seeking a direction to the official respondents, morc particularl-y respondent No.l, to grant police protection to the petitior-rer for entering and cultivating her lands admeasuring Acs-24-34 guntas in Survey Nos.18, 20, 26 ar,a 27 situated at Eerlapall], Village, Bomraspet L4andal, Ir4ahaboobnagar District, whrle relying on the decree ald judgment granted in favor of the petitioner in O.S.No. 15 of 2OO3 which hacl attained hnality.

3. It is contendcd by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner being thc absolute owner of land admeasuring Acs.24.34 guntas covered by Sy.Nos. 18, 20, 26 and 27 of Eerlapally Village, Bomraspet Mandal, Mahaboobnagar, had filed a suit in O-S.No. 15 of 2OO3 bcfore ti:e Senior Civil Judge, Narayanpet for declaration of title and recovery of possession as the said property was illegally occupied by the defendants therein who were disputing the title of the petitioner over such property. It is further submitted that tl.e said suit was decreed in favor of the petitioner and the same -) $:as al-so afliim( c iir ..\.S.Nos.SS and 89 of 2Oa1 )n t he lile of II Additional L)istiict Courr. Mahaboobr:rgar. 1l ' r rn succcssful appellants thercrn anrl unolficial respondents lt, r in carriecl the mattcr lurthcr bv way o[ second eLppeal ..,iCe S.A.N,r .1207 and l47l of 20 I i atrtl thc same were also dismissed b1, th: ii lh ( )ourt for the crstrr,'hiie Stiite of Andhra Pradesh vide a comnrr-,.r juclgment dated

30.O7.2OI'2. i\lrsuant to the juclgment passeri , S.A No. 1207 of 2u^i i. il.c ii.iiiii-rn{rt'J r;,.ho hari aircac_\. inltilrrr. r.lri crrcutior, p.r:c,ceeri in g:.. ,,irte ll.P.l,lo.03 of 2OO7 in O.S.lrlo.I J ,r clelivererl ',. ir' r|r. po,ssession il rr:spc,--t ci s-ll , ei,icting thc .leierda nts /.ID Rs thi:rein, b1. virtut' r i 20O3, r,vas .rlso .'i l)r(lp..rt\', il\ irn or-cicr dated 29 tt 20t 4

4. I1 rs f ,:t'!i',rl r-'ontended bJ. thr: ic:rrned couns,. rr tlrc pctitioner Ll-iat evt:n irf.ter the aforesaid orders of the Court ) c:anre hnal, the respond,,''rt!, Nr-,..i tc 12 and otir,..rs, .who are Jt)il in E.P.No.3 of 2O07, tverc intcr-ieirng into the possession of Lhe p, lioncr and that the polic:c a r(' nol p;:oviding any protection to enal_,r ( her to L-nter or cultivatc ht:r'1ands. It is fr:rther stated by [he learn,.r r:orrnsei for the petitioner that thc police are bound to implement 1i( rlecrees passed by the civil court, particularly rvhen such a decrr:r s confirmcd by this Court, :rs such, the police have to grant necesri r_v protection Lo the petitionor so as to enjoy the fruits of the decr-cc granted by the civil cou rt. I E I i l i )

5. Per contro, the official respondenr No.1 has fiied a counter stating that basing on the corrrplaint made by daughter of the petitioner d.ated O2.O7 -2O 15, a case was already registered against respondent Nos.4 to 12 and others in Crime No- 1O3 of 2O 15 for the offences under Sections 447 , 341, 427 , 323, 504 reacl with SecLion 34 oI Indian Penal Code. During the course of investigation, it was, pnma facie found that the case against the accused therein has been established for committing the olfences under the said provisions and respon<lent No. 1, had hled a charge sl'ie et ,1liairlst respcndent Nos 4 to 12 and others and that the said. res;;onCents are alsc facing trial before t}le Judicial First Class ldagisrrate Court at Kociangal'

6. The grievance of the petitioner is tl-rat though she had submitted a representation on 15-06.2015 to the respondent Nos l and 2 requesting to take action against respcndent Nos-4 to 12 for attacking and threatening ttie petitioner from dme to time and thereby preventing her to cultivate or enjoy her lands Thus, the petitioner also requested the poiice to extend necessary protection to her, however, the Poiice did not move arr inch to come to the aid of the petitioner, compelling the petitioner to approach this Court'

7. It is settled law ttrat once a decree is granted by a competent Civil Court, arrd t}re same attains finali[r, the successful party cannot be left remediless in case of vioiation of terms of such decree ald I / : ; i i l To t\,1P BS 4 ..ludgment by the defendants or their henchmen fr I lheir continued obstruction or in icrference and the State authoritir : are clutl bound to rcspecl. them. In the present case, there is no lispute that thc competent cjvil court had granted a decree and ju(lil rr:nt in lavour of thc pctitioner by granting decraratory relief .ir possession thereo[. conscouentlal

8. Accorllingi-r.. this Court clrrects the responclet t ensurc that larv and order is maintaincd in respe: lancI. It is needless to observe that the peLitioner is to approach r-he police in case of any law and or.<,i may alise in i-espcct of the subject land apart frorn : remedics :rs are available to the petitioner to seek i_,ri j Nos. I and 2 to of the su bjecL lrvavs at liberty ' situation that rarling all other )rcement of the cieclec u.hicli was granted in her favor-

9. With the aforesaid observations, this Writ pel i on is drsposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel. pending miscellaneous applicatic r s, if an1., sfi2ll stand closerl SD/-M. NAGAMANI ASi] iISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER 'l . The Station House Officer, Bomraspet Mandal, Mahat,r obnagar District. 2. The Superintendent of Police, Mahaboobnagar Distric., Mahaboobnagar. 3. The Principal Secretary, State of Telangana, Home I) )partment, Secretariat, 4. One CC to SRI M. VIDYASAGAR, Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CCs to GP for Home, High Court for the S iate of Telangana at Hyderabad. Hyderabad. [OUT]

6. Two CD Copies ;.=FFY## HIGH COURT DAI ED:2910812025 iu., ':r.., ORDER WP.Nc.38310 of 2015 DISPOSING OF THE \/ IRIT PETITION x a WI..HOUT COSTS:+ :.. L .,t c t- @ a bu 04