THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA WRIT PETITION No.15236 of 2011 ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of respondents 2 to 4 in interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the land admeasuring 10 acres in Sy.No.82/2/A/AA, situated at Pokalagudem Revenue Village, Chandrugonda Mandal, Khammam District, in spite of injunction order, dated 11-11-2010, passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kothagudem, Khammam District, in CM.A.No.4 of 2010, as illegal and arbitrary and consequently to direct the 1st respondent to provide police aid and protection to implement the said injunction order. The petitioner has averred that he is the owner of the land admeasuring 10 acres in Sy.No.82/2/A/AA, situated at Pokalagudem Revenue Village, Chandrugonda Mandal, Khammam District. It is further averred that as respondents 2 to 4 were interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner over the land in question, he obtained temporary injunction on 11-11-2010. Despite grant of injunction, respondents 2 to 4 are interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner over the land in question. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner filed an application before the 1st respondent requesting to provide police security but no action has been taken by the 1st respondent so far. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on P.R.MURLIDHARAN AND OTHERS Vs. SWAMI DHARMANANDA THEERTHA PADAR AND OTHERS[1]. The reliance of the petitioner on P.R.Murlidharan’s case (supra) is absolutely misplaced, as in the instant case there is no threat perception to the life and liberty of the petitioner, whereas in P.R.Murlidharan’s case (supra), there was a threat perception to the life of the petitioners therein. A perusal of the material on record goes to show that the dispute between the petitioner and respondents 2 to 4 is essentially civil in nature and in case, the petitioner has obtained an injunction order against respondents 2 to 4 and they are violating the said order, the petitioner has remedy of filing contempt case or resort to other remedy which may be available to him under law. As far as the question of grant of police security is concerned, the same is not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case. However, in case there is any threat perception to the life of the petitioner, he may file appropriate application before the appropriate Superintendent of Police, who after causing an enquiry may pass appropriate orders as admissible under law. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA, J Date:21-06-2011 Prv [1] (2006) 4 Supreme Court Cases 501