IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 19215 of 2007 Between: Ashurkhana Rajavari Peerla Chavidi, Gandhi Road, Ongole, Rep.by its Muthawalli,Syed Jalal, S/o.Syed Ali Muthawali, R/o.Balairao Pet, Ghantapalem,Ongole,Prakasam Dist ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.by the Superintendent of Police, Ongole,Prakasam 2 The Station House Officer, (Rural) Taluk Police Station, Ongole,Prakasam Dist 3 Sri K.Venkateswara Rao, Sub Inspector of Police, Taluk Police Station(Rural) Ongole,Prakasam Dist .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.SYED SHAREEF AHMED Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 & 2: AGP FOR HOME The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in not extending necessary police protection to the petitioner in respect of land admeasuring Ac.18.88 cents situated in Survey No.113 at Pernamitta Village, Santhanuthalapadu Mandal, Prakasam District, as illegal. The petitioner claims that the property in dispute is a wakf property and when respondent Nos.4 to 7 sought to interfere with its possession in respect of the said property, it filed O.S.No.62 of 2007 before the Andhra Pradesh Wakf Tribunal, Hyderabad (for short ‘the Tribunal’) and also I.A.No.439 of 2007, in which, the Tribunal granted interim injunction restraining them from causing any sort of interference with the possession, enjoyment and management of the property by the petitioner. The petitioner claimed that the District Wakf Officer and District Revenue Officer addressed a letter, dated 20.08.2007 to the Tahsildar, Santhanuthalapadu, wherein he was directed to inspect the site and provide police protection to the said land to avoid law and order problem. The Tahsildar, in turn, is claimed to have addressed a letter, dated 24.08.2007 to the Station House Officer, Taluk Police Station, Ongole to protect the property. The grievance of the petitioner is that respondent No.2 despite the order of the Wakf Tribunal and the letters mentioned above is not giving police protection. At the hearing, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, on instructions, submitted that the property was already in occupation of private persons including respondent Nos.4 to 7 and that it is not possible for the police to evict them without there being any order passed by the competent Court. The order passed by the Wakf Tribunal is in the nature of injunction restraining the private persons named therein from interfering with the alleged possession of the petitioner. If the said persons are already in possession, the said order would not enure to the benefit of the petitioner to recover possession in the guise of an order of injunction. Therefore, I find justification in the contention of the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home that police cannot restore the possession of the petitioner purporting to implement the order of injunction. Unless the petitioner seeks positive directions from the competent Court/Tribunal, it is not entitled to take the assistance of police to retrieve possession from third parties. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed giving liberty to the petitioner to approach the appropriate Court/Tribunal for appropriate relief. As a sequel to dismissal of main petition, WPMP.No.24706 of 2007 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 17th APRIL, 2008 kvni