IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.13793 of 2009 Between: Sheik Omar Bin Abdullah S/o.Abdullah Bin Ahmed R/o.18-11-277, Barkas, Hyderabad ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Govt of AP., rep.by its Secretary, Home Department Secretariat, Hyderabad 2 The STation House officer, P.S.Pahadi Shareef Ranga Reddy District .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:SMT.C.VANI REDDY Counsel for the Respondents:AGP FOR HOME The Court made the following : ORDER: In this writ petition, the petitioner sought for a mandamus to declare the inaction of respondent No.2 in providing police aid to protect his possession of land admeasuring Acs.6.03 guntas in Survey No.63 of Makhta Shah Kharosh, Sultanpur, Saroornagar, in terms of decree, dated 31.03.2008, as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner claims to be the owner of the above-mentioned land. When a person, by name, Syed Mahmood Pasha Hussain forcibly dispossessed him, the petitioner filed O.S.No.105 of 2006 on the file of Principal District Judge, Ranga Reddy for recovery of possession of the land. The said suit was decreed under judgment and decree, dated 31.01.2008. Vacant possession of the property was claimed to have been delivered to the petitioner under order, dated 04.02.2009 in E.P.No.26 of 2008. The petitioner pleaded that on 28.04.2009, some third parties, who have nothing to do with the land, tried to interfere with his possession. The petitioner claimed to have made a representation on 30.04.2009 to respondent No.2 for providing protection and he felt aggrieved by the inaction of respondent No.2 in responding to the said representation. Having heard Smt. C.Vani Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, I am of the view that by filing the present writ petition, the petitioner availed a wrong remedy. In the first place, the petitioner is required to seek appropriate relief against the third parties who are stated to be interfering with his possession before the competent Civil Court. After obtaining such relief, if his possession is still sought to be disturbed, the petitioner can approach the Civil Court, which granted the relief to grant police protection. It is only in the event of the Civil Court not granting such a relief, that the petitioner can approach this Court for appropriate directions to the police to give aid to implement the order of the competent Civil Court. As the petitioner has not followed this procedure, I do not find any reason to entertain this writ petition. Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of main petition, WPMP.No.18020 of 2009 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 10th JULY, 2009. kvni