IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION NO.4861 OF 2005 DATED:24.03.2011 Between: K. Nallapa Reddy … Petitioner And The Revenue Divisional Officer Anantapur and others … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION NO.4861 OF 2005 ORDER: The petitioner questions the proceedings dt.7.3.2005 in Rc. No.D2/311/2005 of the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO), Anantapur, requesting the Station House Officer (SHO), II Town Police Station, Anantapur, whereby the RDO requested the SHO to see that no encroachments are made in the plots laid in S. No.102-5 of Papampeta Village, Anatapur District, and give protection to the land owners who got orders by the Commissioner and Director of Settlements, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, vide R.P. No.282/87-A2 and R.P. No.203/88-A2, dated 16.10.2004. It is the case of the petitioner that the land in S.No.102 admeasuring Ac.5.29 cents in Papampeta Village, Anantapur Mandal belongs to one Gollapalli Sitaramaiah, who is the Shotriamdar and he executed a will in favour of his daughter M. Lakshmi Kanthamma bequeathing the above said property. The petitioner purchased an extent of Ac.1.32¼ cents under an agreement of sale dt.28.8.1990 from said Lakshmi Kanthamma for a sum of Rs.3.00 lakhs and as the said Lakshmi Kanthamma did not execute the registered sale deed in favour of the petitioner, he filed O.S. No.131 of 2003 on the file of the Court of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Anantapur, for specific performance of the agreement dt.28.8.1990 and the said suit was decreed on 23.9.2003 directing Lakshmi Kanthamma to execute the registered sale deed in favour of the petitioner. As the sale deed was not executed, the petitioner filed E.P. No.31 of 2004 seeking a direction for execution of the sale deed by Lakshmi Kanthamma in favour of the petitioner. It is stated that as Lakshmi Kanthamma failed to execute the sale deed even after the order passed in the E.P., the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Anantapur, got executed registered sale deed in favour of the petitioner on 14.6.2004. Thereafter, the petitioner filed E.A. No.162 of 2005 in E.P. No.31 of 2004 in the suit, seeking delivery of possession in respect of the suit schedule property, whereas the second respondent has filed E.A. No.160 of 2005, under Order 21 Rule 97 of CPC, for declaration of his title over an extent of Ac.0.60 cents in S. No.102 of Papampeta Village and E.A. No.161 of 2005, seeking stay of delivery proceedings and the same are pending. While so, on an application filed by the respondent No.3, the impugned order dt.7.3.2005 was passed by the RDO requesting the SHO for giving protection to the land owners who got orders dt.16.10.2004 by the Commissioner and Director of Settlements, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. Hence, the writ petition. This Court on 11.3.2005 granted interim suspension of the impugned order dt.7.3.2005 and later, on a vacate stay petition filed by the second respondent, the interim order was made absolute on 4.1.2007. Along with the vacate stay petition, a counter affidavit was filed by the second respondent. In the said counter affidavit, the second respondent stated that the lands in entire village of Papampeeta are declared as private lands or Shrotriumdars by the Settlement Officer, and Shrotriumdar Gollapalli Seetharamaiah sold house sites under registered sale deeds to various persons. Later, resurvey numbers are assigned by the Survey Department to the property purchased by the people under registered sale deeds from Shrotriumdar Gollapalli Seetharamaiah. The purchasers under registered sale deeds have got their names mutated in the revenue records by the orders of the Assistant Survey of Settlement Officer. One Maheswarananda, alleged trustee of a trust under the name and style ‘Vignareswara Ahhramam mutt’, got orders in his favour in the year 1986 from the Assistant Settlement Officer, Nellore, by playing fraud and filing tampered and fabricated documents. Later, in 1987 the Director of Survey and Settlements coming to know of the same, suo motu reopened R.P. No.282/87 and cancelled the orders of the Assistant Settlement Officer in favour of Maheswarananda on 16.10.2004. The second respondent filed R.P. No.203/1988 before the Director of Survey and Settlements stating that he was granted patta by the Settlement Officer in 1984 for the said land and the same was confirmed by the Survey and Settlement Officer in R.P. No.203/88, dt.16.10.2004. The writ petitioner filed a suit in O.S. No.131 of 2003 basing on an alleged agreement of sale executed by M. Lakshmi Kanthamma and the suit was set ex parte and based on the decree in the suit writ petitioner got registered sale deed through the Court on 19.2.2005. Therefore, the second respondent filed an application seeking stay of delivery of possession of the property. It is the case of the second respondent that the boundaries mentioned in the registered document of the alleged agreement are not tallying with the original F.M.B and the said Lakshmi Kanthamma, from whom allegedly the petitioner purchased the land and who is respondent in E.P. NO.31 of 2004, is not having title as the father of Lakshmi Kanthamma late G. Seetharamaiah sold the said extent by way of plots in the year 1951 to the father of the second respondent. After obtaining order from Director of Survey and Settlement Officer, Hyderabad, second respondent started construction of compound wall and before making construction, he made an application to the District Collector, Ananthapur, for police protection against the writ petitioner and the District Collector forwarded the application of the second respondent to the Revenue Divisional Officer who in turn directed the Station House Officer, II Town Police Station, Anantapur to give protection to the second respondent from the writ petitioner. Hence, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner while reiterating the facts submits that when there is admittedly a civil dispute pending in respect of the subject land application seeking police protection cannot be entertained by the revenue authorities and the prayer cannot be granted. In support of his case, he relied on Kotlamarri Narayana v. Revenue Divisional Officer[1] and Polavarapu Nagamani v. Parchuri Koteshwara Rao[2]. On the other hand, learned counsel for the second respondent submits that the writ petitioner is neither a patta holder nor got any title, but a stranger to the land in question. Though the suit filed by the petitioner for specific performance of agreement of sale was decreed by the Civil Court, admittedly possession of the property was not handed over to him. Therefore, when the writ petitioner was interfering illegally with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the second respondent and others, he along with others made a representation to the District Collector, who forwarded the same to the RDO and the RDO in turn directed the Station House Officer, II Town Police Station, Anantapur, to see that no encroachments should be made in the plots laid in S. No.102-5 of Papampeta Village and give protection to the land owners who got orders by the Commissioner and Director of Settlements, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, vide R.P. No.282/87-A2 and R.P. No.203/88-A2, dated 16.10.2004. The impugned order was passed basing on the final order passed by the Commissioner and Director of Settlements, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, in R.P. No.282/87-A2 and R.P. No.203/88-A2, dated 16.10.2004. The said order was neither cancelled nor set aside. The beneficiaries of the order are entitled to protect their lands. Admittedly, possession is not given in favour of the writ petitioner even by the Civil Court. If possession is delivered in favour of the petitioner by the Civil Court, it is always open for the petitioner to seek appropriate police protection or seek appropriate orders for violation of order given in his favour by the Court. It is only to prevent the law and order problem, in the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly in view of the order dt.16.10.2004 of the Commissioner and Director of Settlements, the impugned order was passed requesting the SHO to see that no encroachments are made on the land in question, and hence the same cannot be said to be not authorized or unsustainable. In Kotlamarri Narayana’s case (supra) it was held that when there is a civil dispute pending between the parties and while the suit is pending consideration the revenue authorities should not interfere in the matter directing police authorities to consider for providing police protection that too without hearing the affecting party. In Polavarapu Nagamani’s case (supra) it was held that even if there is violation of an injunction order, Civil Court cannot order for Police protection and the only course open for the party concerned is execution under Order 21 Rule 32 of CPC of application under Order 39 Rule 2A of CPC. The ratio laid down in the above cases do not attract to the case on hand as admittedly based on the order dt.16.10.2004 of the Commissioner and Director of Settlements, on the directions of the District Collector, the RDO requested the SHO to see that no encroachments are made on the land in question and to give protection to the land owners who got said orders dt.16.10.2004. Therefore, I do not find any merit in the writ petition. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. However, if possession of the property in question is delivered in favour of the petitioner by the Civil Court, by dismissing the application of the second respondent, it is always open for the petitioner to legally get possession through bailiff of the Court/police protection. Till then, it cannot be said that the impugned order is illegal or arbitrary. No costs. _______________________ V. ESWARAIAH, J 24.3.2011 bnr [1] 2009 (4) ALT 125 [2] 2010 (2) ALD 41 (DB)