IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 28679 of 2008 Between: Yalagondala Kondamma W/o.Mastanaiah, D/o.Ijjagiri Malakondaiah Resident of H.No.16/3-564 Muthyalapalem,Nellore ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Sub-Inspector of Police, IV Town Police Station Nellore 2 The Superintendent of Police,Nellore 3 Pulimi Prasada Reddy alias Prabhakar Reddy S/o.Poli Reddy Resident of Haranathapuram,Nellore 4 Puchikayala Bhaskar Reddy S/o.Pola Reddy Resident of 12-9-E, Gundalavarithota Back side of Municipal Corporation office, Nellore .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.SURENDRA DESAI Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 and 2: GP FOR HOME Counsel for Respondent Nos.3 and 4: ---- The Court made the following: ORDER: At the interlocutory stage, the Writ Petition is taken up for hearing and disposal with the Consent of the learned Counsel for the parties. In this Writ Petition, the grievance of the Writ Petitioner is that the respondents-Police Officials are not giving protection to the person and property of the petitioner. The averments contained in the affidavit, filed in support of the Writ Petition, clearly show that O.S.No.850 of 1999 filed by the petitioner’s father against respondent Nos.3 and 4 was dismissed and the said decree was confirmed in Appeal Suit No.59 of 2006 by the lower appellate Court and that Second Appeal No.224 of 2008, filed by the petitioner’s father against the said judgment and decree, is pending in this Court. At the hearing, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, candidly, admitted that no interim order has been granted in the Second Appeal. A perusal of the material papers filed by respondent Nos.3 and 4 shows that this Court declined to grant injunction and accordingly, SAMP.No.531 of 2008 filed by the petitioner’s father for interim relief was dismissed by this Court on 02-07-2008. Inasmuch as no order of Court of competent jurisdiction, to protect the petitioner’s possession of the land has been granted in her favour or in favour of her father, she is not entitled to seek Police aid to protect her alleged possession of the property. As regards the alleged threat from respondent Nos.3 and 4, the petitioner is permitted to approach respondent No.1 with a complaint, as and when she receives such threat, and on such complaint being filed, the latter shall take appropriate action in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the Writ Petition, interim order dated 30-12-2008 is vacated, W.P.M.P.No.37534 of 2008 is dismissed and W.V.M.P.No.785 of 2009 is disposed of as infructuous. .______________________ (C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J) 26th June, 2009 lur