IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION No.25210 of 2010 Between: G.Thimmappa ……PETITIONER(S) and The Circle Inspector of Police, Anantapur Rural, Anantapur District and others ……RESPONDENT(S) THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION No.25210 of 2010 ORDER: Heard Sri G.Nageswara Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Home. At their request, the Writ Petition is taken up for disposal at the stage of admission. The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents 1 and 2 are not granting police aid to implement the judgment and decree dated 17.03.2010 passed in O.S.No.751 of 2009 by the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Anantapur, whereby and whereunder the 3rd respondent herein was restrained permanently from interfering with his possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property. The facts, in brief, are that the petitioner purchased Ac.0-60 cents out of Acs.8-00 of agricultural land in Sy.No.237/1A of Talupuru Village in Vaddupalli Panchayat area of Anantapur District for a valuable consideration on 30.03.2007 from his vendor and ever since the date of purchase he has been in possession and enjoyment of the same without any interference from any quarter. While the matter stood thus, during last week of November 2009, as the 3rd respondent without any manner of right, title or interest tried to interfere with his peaceful possession and enjoyment, he filed O.S.No.751 of 2009 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Anantapur, for permanent injunction restraining the 3rd respondent, his men, agents, servants, relatives and others from interfering with his possession and enjoyment over the plaint schedule property and, along with the Suit, he filed I.A.No.1382 of 2009 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 for temporary injunction. The Civil Court having perused the documents allowed the said application and granted temporary injunction on 08.12.2009 against the 3rd respondent. Since the 3rd respondent and his relatives are preventing him to cultivate the land, he filed I.A.No.31 of 2010 in the said Suit seeking to provide police protection and the same stood allowed on 28.01.2010 which order was communicated to the respondents 1 and 2 herein. As the respondents 1 and 2 did not respond to the said order, he filed W.P.No.8252 of 2010 before this Court seeking implementation of the order passed by the Civil Court and the same was allowed on 25.04.2010 and, in the interregnum, the Suit filed by him was also decreed on 17.03.2010. As per the orders of this Court, the respondents 1 and 2 called the 3rd respondent and directed him not to interfere with the petitioner’s possession and enjoyment over the said land. While so, when 4th respondent who is relative of 3rd respondent is obstructing him to cultivate the land, he approached respondents 1 and 2 and requested them to take action against the 4th respondent. But, respondents 1 and 2 did not take any action against the 4th respondent on the ground that he is not a party to the proceedings. A perusal of the decree shows that only the 3rd respondent herein is restrained from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioner over the suit schedule property. As the decree is silent as to the men, agents, servants, relatives and others of 3rd respondent, the respondents 1 and 2 have rightly rejected the request of the petitioner for grant of police aid. Either this Court or the police cannot grant any relief to the petitioner beyond the scope of the decree. The Writ Petition is misconceived for the reason that the petitioner cannot seek such a relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India without availing the efficacious alternative remedies available to him in law. The petitioner, if so advised, can approach the competent Civil Court, initiate proceedings to add the men, agents, servants and relatives of 3rd respondent who are interfering with his possession and enjoyment, as parties to the Suit proceedings and then seek police protection for implementation of the injunction order. The Writ Petition is, therefore, dismissed. However, the petitioner, if he so chooses, is at liberty to approach the competent Civil Court for redressal of his grievance. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. 06th October 2010 CVRK