IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.5393 & 5484 OF 2009 CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5393 OF 2009 Between: G. Narasaiah and another .....PETITIONERS AND The A.P. Bhoodan Yagna Board and others ....RESPONDENTS CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5484 OF 2009 Between: G. Narasaiah and another .....PETITIONERS AND The A.P. Bhoodan Yagna Board and others ....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.5393 & 5484 OF 2009 COMMON ORDER: These Civil Revision Petitions, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, are directed against the order, dated 01.10.2009 and 26.10.2009, in I.A.No.1604 of 2009 and Memo in O.S. (SR).No.15782 of 2009 in O.S.No.1507 of 2008 on the file the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District, whereunder and whereby, the petitions filed by respondent No.1 herein were allowed granting police aid to it. 2. For better appreciation of facts, the parties are hereinafter referred to as arrayed before the trial Court. 3. Plaintiff filed the suit for perpetual injunction and incidentally filed a petition for grant of temporary injunction in respect of the land admeasuring Ac.7-00 guntas in Survey No.57 (present Survey No.57/2) situated at Karmanghat Village, Saroor Nagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, by giving the boundaries to the said land. After hearing both sides the trial Court granted temporary injunction in respect of the land restraining the respondents/defendants not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of plaintiff. Challenging the same, the respondents/defendants preferred a C.M.A. before the Principal District Judge, Ranga Reddy District. The learned Judge while admitting the appeal has not granted any stay, and the appeal is still pending. As on today there was an injunction order subsisting restraining the respondents/defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff from the petition schedule land. Thereafter, a petition is filed by the plaintiff to give police protection to implement the orders of the trail Court on the ground that the respondents/defendants were trying to dispossess it from the petition schedule land and that petition was ordered. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners/defendant Nos.1 and 3 contended that the revision petitioners were having Ac.19-00 guntas of land in Survey No.57/T situated at Karmanghat Village, Saroor Nagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District; and that they are in possession and enjoyment of petition schedule property and when the third party was trying to interfere with the possession of respondent No.1 herein/plaintiff, the trial Court granted police aid and hence, he prays to set aside the same. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.1 herein contended that the order under challenge does not suffer from any infirmities, in view of the fact that it is passed in accordance with the injunction granted by the trial Court and since the land in question does not fall within the limits of L.B.Nagar, respondent No.1 herein filed a memo to give necessary directions to the concerned police i.e., P.S. Vanasthalipuram to give police aid and that memo was rightly allowed and hence, there are no grounds to interfere with the same. 6. As on today, the temporary injunction granted against the petitioners herein and others directing them not to interfere with the possession of the petition schedule property to an extent of Ac.7-00 guntas of land in Survey No.57 (now known as Survey No.57/2) situated at Karmanghat Village, Saroor Nagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, is subsisting. Though an appeal is filed by the defendants, the order of granting temporary injunction was not suspended by the appellate Court. 7. The Secretary of the Andhra Pradesh Bhoodan Yagna Board, who is respondent No.1 herein, has specifically stated that the defendants are making hectic efforts to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of respondent No.1/plaintiff herein over the petition schedule land; and therefore, they approached the police L.B. Nagar to give police aid, but the police advised them to obtain necessary orders from the Honourable Court; and therefore, the present applications are filed. The reason necessitated for filing an application for police aid has been specifically stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition. It is also specifically stated that defendants are trying to occupy the petition schedule property by engaging goonda elements and on 31.07.2008, they tried to disturb the stone pillars (kaddies) and tried to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of respondent No.1 herein. Since plaintiff is Bhoodan Yagna Board, they may not be in a position to protect the possession of the petition schedule property, when the acts of the defendants were alleged to be high handed. Therefore, the Bhoodan Yagna Board rightly applied to give police aid. Even it is the case of defendants that they are having title in respect of the land in Survey No.57 (now known as Survey No.57/2) as mentioned in the schedule. In such a case, the trial Court rightly ordered for police protection. Similarly, when the local limits of the land in question fall within the police station limits of Vanasthalipuram, the trial Court rightly directed the Vanasthalipuram police instead of L.B. Nagar police to give police aid to respondent No1. herein. Therefore, both the impugned orders need no interference by this Court, as they are in accordance with law. 8. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed. However, it is made clear that the police aid can be given only in respect of Ac.7-00 guntas of land in Survey No.57 (now known as 57/2) of Karmanghat Village, Saroor Nagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, to protect possession of respondent No.1 herein. Observation, if any, made by this Court in this order, is only for the purpose of disposal of these revision petitions. Uninfluenced by any of the observations, the appellate Court shall dispose of the C.M.A. in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ K.C. BHANU, J June 07, 2010 MD/IVD