THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI MADAN B. LOKUR AND THE HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL No. 1017 OF 2011 DATED:23-11-2011 Between: Chinta Jagannadham and four others … Appellants And Sagiraju Ramagopala Raju and seven others … Respondent THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI MADAN B. LOKUR AND THE HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL No. 1017 OF 2011 JUDGMENT: (per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Shri Madan B. Lokur) 1. The appellants are aggrieved by an order dated 31-01-2011 passed by a learned single Judge in WPMP No. 1860 of 2011 and WVMP No. 3036 of 2010 in Writ Petition No. 1401 of 2010. 2. The writ petitioners had filed an application under Section 151 of the CPC for a direction to the effect that police protection be provided to them in respect of their lawful possession and enjoyment of their land to an extent of Acs.50.00 cents in R.S No. 372 of Kalipatnam Village, Mogaltur Mandal, West Godavari District, pending disposal of the writ petition. 3. In this regard, it was contended by the writ petitioners that their neighbours are not allowing the conducting of a survey of the land owned by them and are creating law and order problems and, therefore, police protection may be provided. 4. By an interim order dated 28-01-2010, the learned single Judge provided police protection to the writ petitioners and it appears that during the pendency of the application, survey was conducted fixing the boundaries of the land of the writ petitioners covered by R.S No. 372. 5. The grievance of the appellants before us (who are respondents before the learned single Judge) is that under the guise of the interim orders, the police are taking steps to evict them from their land in R.S No. 372. 6. The learned single Judge noted that the appellants are not claiming any land in R.S No. 372. In our opinion, this observation is not borne out from the record inasmuch as an affidavit has been filed by the appellants on 21-03-2010 in which they are claiming Acs.6.00 in R.S No. 372. Some of the other appellants are claiming Acs.2.00 of land each in the same survey number and in all, the appellants claim Acs.14.00 cents in R.S No. 372 as absolute owners, title holders and possessors. 7. It is pointed out by learned counsel for the writ petitioners that this is disputed by the writ petitioners and a reply to that effect has also been filed. 8. Be that as it may, it is not necessary to decide, for the present, whether the ownership of the land is of the appellants or not. All that we would like to observe is that it is not correct, in view of the affidavit filed on 21-03-2010 that the appellants are not claiming any land in R.S No. 372. 9. The learned single Judge has, however, made it clear that under the guise of the orders passed by this Court, no steps shall be taken for eviction of any of the parties from the lands which are in their possession. In our opinion, this adequately protects all the parties. 10. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that notwithstanding the protection given by the learned single Judge, steps are being taken to evict the appellants from the land in their possession. If that is so, the appellants can certainly bring it to the notice of the learned single Judge. It is not necessary for us to comment on this allegation. 11. In view of the above observations, the writ appeal is disposed of. 12. The miscellaneous applications are also disposed of. MADAN B. LOKUR, CJ SANJAY KUMAR, J 23-11-2011 ks