IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 3094 of 2009 Between: Syed Mukthar Ahmed ..... PETITIONER AND The Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad and six others. .....RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.J.ASHVINI KUMAR Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following : Form-NIC-OGS/WP{TRK} HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY W.P.No.3094 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioner’s grievance in this writ petition is that despite grant of decree for perpetual injunction by the learned VI Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, in O.S.No.2850 of 2004, which has become final, and an order passed by the Civil Court to grant police protection against interference by respondents 4 to 7, respondents 2 and 3 have not been protecting the possession of the petitioner by complying the decree and the order passed by the Civil Court. 2. In the counter-affidavit filed by respondent No.4, it is inter alia, stated as under: “5. It is respectfully submitted that the enquiries further revealed that there are disputes between the petitioner as well as the unofficial respondents 5 to 7 herein who are the members of M/s.Paramount Cooperative Housing Society with regard to the title of the subject premises of the petitioner herein. I submit that when both parties are creating nuisance at the dispute site, this respondent advised both the parties to get the land surveyed and demarcated the disputed site. This respondent police are always ready and willing to provide police aid to the petitioner and for strict implementation of the orders passed by the Hon’ble Court dated 23-11-2005, if the subject premises of the petitioner is demarcated by a surveyor. Survey of the land of the petitioner is not done so far.” 3. The learned counsel for respondent No.7 submitted that though an order was passed directing survey and demarcation of the land in question by the competent Civil Court, the petitioner has not been co-operating with conduct of survey. 4. While the police are bound to carry out the lawful orders passed by the Courts, at the same time, they cannot be blamed, if there is any ambiguity in the identity of the property. In the face of the categorical undertaking given by respondent No.4 that the police are ready and willing to provide protection for carrying out the decree obtained by the petitioner, if the boundaries are clearly demarcated, I see no reason why the petitioner is shirking to get the boundaries demarcated by the competent surveyor. 5. In that view of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to get the boundaries of the land covered by the decree demarcated and approach the police for aid. In the event, the police decline to grant aid, the petitioner shall be free to avail the remedies available to him under law. 6. Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. 7. As a sequel to disposal of writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.3995 of 2009 is also disposed of as infructuous. _______________________ Date: 08-06-2009 C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J KVR