THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No:1279 of 2009 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order, dated 15.09.2008, in I.A.No.730 of 2006 in O.S.No.110 of 1996 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Madanapalli, wherein the said application filed by the petitioner herein under Section 151 CPC, seeking police aid to protect his possession and enjoyment of the suit property, was dismissed. 2. Heard both sides. Perused the records. 3. Petitioner herein was assigned D-form patta in respect of the suit land in the year, 1984. 3rd respondent- Mandal Revenue Officer initiated proceedings for cancellation of the D-form patta. Petitioner approached the Joint Collector, Chittoor, who in turn directed the Mandal Revenue Officer to provide alternative land of equivalent extent to the petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner carried the matter to the Commissioner of Land Revenue who confirmed the order of the Joint Collector. Thereafter, petitioner filed W.P.No.8116 of 1990. While disposing of the said Writ Petition, this Court directed the respondents not to disturb the petitioner’s possession till alternative land is provided. Petitioner thereafter approached the Mandal Revenue Officer seeking compliance with the order of this Court. Petitioner alleges that the respondents failed to obey the orders of this Court. He, therefore, filed O.S.No.110 of 1996 for injunction. After contest, the suit was decreed. Petitioner now filed I.A.No.730 of 2006, seeking police aid for protection of his possession and enjoyment over the suit land. 4. Respondents filed a counter contending that in pursuance of the direction of this Court in W.P.No.8116 of 1990, the Mandal Revenue Officer provided alternative land of Ac.2.00 in Sy.No.9, which is more in extent than the suit land and is situate within a radius of 2 kms of Molakalacheruvu village and is fit for cultivation. Respondents alleged that the petitioner refused to accept the said land and intended to retain the possession of the suit land, which is Ac.1.26 cents. According to the respondents, the suit land is proposed to be resumed for the benefit of the public at large by constructing a Primary Health centre and Anganvadi school. 5. During the enquiry before the trial Court, P.W.1 was examined and no documents were marked. R.W.1- Mandal Revenue Officer was examined and Exs.B1 and B2 were marked on behalf of the respondents. 6. In the impugned order, the learned Senior Civil Judge, on appreciation of the evidence available on record, held that the respondents proposed to resume the suit land in public interest for the benefit of the community at large and the respondents have in fact offered alternative land of Ac.2.00 within a distance of 2 kms from the railway station and bus stand and which is also fit for cultivation and that the petitioner has refused to accept the alternative land. It cannot therefore be said that the respondents have failed to comply with the direction of this Court in W.P.No.8116 of 1990. The trial Court has rightly held that the petitioner is not entitled to seek police aid for protection of his possession of the suit land and the respondents have already issued proceedings offering alternative land to the petitioner. No doubt, the suit for permanent injunction is decreed in favour of the petitioner but at the same time, he cannot cling on to the possession of the suit land for ever and seek protection of the same by grant of police aid. When the respondents have in fact offered alternative land of Ac.2.00 in compliance with the direction of this Court in the Writ Petition, the refusal of the trial Court to grant police aid to the petitioner in the facts and circumstances of the present case, cannot therefore be found fault with. The impugned order, dismissing the application filed by the petitioner herein, does not call for any interference by this Court. 7. Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. ______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY,J 24th August, 2011. Tsy