IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 12827 of 2009 Between: Nuthi Vijaya Rani W/o.late Venkata Rao R/o.Gattaigudem, Palvancha, Khammam District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Superintendent of Police, Khammam District, Khammam. 2 The Tahsildar, Palvancha Mandal, Palvancha, Khammam District. 3 The Station House Officer, Palvancha Town Police Station Palvancha, Khammam District. ...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR K.SURENDER RAJ FOR MR V.JAGAPATHI Counsel for the Respondents: AGP FOR HOME The Court made the following : O R D E R: In this writ petition, the petitioner sought for a Mandamus to declare the inaction of respondent Nos.1 to 3 in providing police protection in respect of property admeasuring Acs.14.03 cents in Survey No.727/1 of Palvancha Village and Mandal, Khammam District as arbitrary and illegal. A perusal of the averments contained in the affidavit shows that there is a dispute over the above mentioned property between the petitioner and one D.Govinda Rao. The petitioner filed W.P. No.3321 of 2009 in this Court against the notice issued by the Sub-Collector, Palvoncha for cancellation of pattadar pass books and title deeds issued in his favour. This Court granted stay of further proceedings and the said writ petition is pending. The grievance of the petitioner is that the followers of the said D.Govinda Rao have been interfering with her possession and respondent Nos.1 to 3 have failed to protect her possession. Admittedly the petitioner has not obtained a decree or an order from the civil Court of competent jurisdiction to restrain Sri D.Govinda Rao or any other persons claiming through him from interfering with the petitioner’s alleged possession. In my considered view, the petitioner ought not to have invoked the jurisdiction of this Court straight away without first approaching the civil Court. While Article 226 of the Constitution of India has not inhibited the exercise of jurisdiction by this Court, as a Rule of prudence, this Court, ordinarily, would not entertain the writ petitions of this nature, unless the aggrieved party first approaches the civil Court, which is empowered to grant an order to protect a person’s possession and also for police protection in aid of such order. It is only in extraordinary situations that this Court entertains such writ petitions, if the aggrieved party assigns valid reasons for not approaching the civil Court in the first instance. In this view of the matter, the writ petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to approach the civil Court for redressal of his grievances. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P. No.16611 of 2009 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 30th June, 2009 vrn