THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SRI B.PRAKASH RAO AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V.SURI APPA RAO WRIT APPEAL No.908 of 2010 And WRIT PETITION No.14782 of 2009 COMMON JUDGMENT: (per the Hon’ble the Acting Chief Justice Sri B.Prakash Rao) Heard both sides. Since these two matters arise in between the same parties in respect of almost same subject matter, they are taken up together for disposal. In Writ Appeal No.908 of 2010, the appellants who are the third parties sought to file the said appeal, after obtaining the leave by this Court, aggrieved by the orders passed by a learned single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.15711 of 2010, dated 07.10.2010, where the respondent No.1 herein sought to invoke the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for a writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Station House Officer, Nunna Police Station, Vijayawada, is not extending police protection to him in spite of the representations made by him as illegal and arbitrary and also to extend similar police protection. Now, through Writ Petition No.14782 of 2009, the petitioner, who is respondent No.1 in Writ Appeal No.908 of 2010, once again invokes the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court seeking for a writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents therein in not conducting the survey and demarcating the lands in an extent of Ac.0-99 cents in Sy.No.78/3 of Payakapuram, Vijayawada (Urban) Mandal, Vijayawada, as arbitrary and illegal and consequently, direct the respondents therein to forthwith survey the said land. After hearing the learned counsel appearing on either side and on perusal of the relevant material on record, the grievance of the appellants appears to be the claim in regard to the lands in question, which is being claimed by both the sides. Admittedly, the appellants herein and the writ petitioner have already approached the civil Court by filing suits O.S.No.826 and 863 of 1985 on the file of the II Additional District Munif, Vijayawada, seeking the relief of perpetual injunction and the same were dismissed by a common judgment and decree, dated 22.12.1997. Thereafter, both the parties preferred appeals and the same were also dismissed. It is in their suits for injunction, both the parties’ claimed right, title and interest over the lands in dispute and the same has been negatived. It is only thereafter, now, the appellants herein and the writ petitioner in W.P.No.14782 of 2009 approached this Court seeking the relief as stated above. Though the relief sought for looks on the face of it is as vociferous, but it is an attempt for getting over the civil decree passed by the trial Court in the said suits and upheld by the lower appellate Court on appeal. As long as the rights of the parties are not decided by a competent Court in properly filed suits, it is not proper for this Court exercising the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to go into all those disputed facts including the survey, apart from the respective claims for police protection as sought for. In the circumstances, we are of the view that the very filing of writ petition No.15711 of 2010 and the orders as obtained by the writ petitioner therein are misconceived and unsustainable. Further, it is quite apparent that the writ petitioner has not informed this Court and has not come out with all the suit proceedings taken up earlier, which he had lost. Surprisingly, he sought for survey of the very same lands, which is again wholly unsustainable. In the circumstances, we are of the view that there are no merits in the writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. In view of the above, the Writ Appeal is allowed and the order, dated 07.10.2010, passed in Writ Petition No.15711 of 2010 is set aside and Writ Petition No.15711 of 2010 is dismissed. Similarly, Writ Petition No.14782 of 2009 is also held to be not maintainable and the same is accordingly dismissed, leaving it open for both parties to approach the civil Court and seek appropriate comprehensive relief and also any such other reliefs which they are entitled to. However, there shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ B.PRAKASH RAO, HACJ __________________________ JUSTICE V.SURI APPA RAO 30th November 2010 dr