THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.15257 of 2007 DATE: 25.06.2010 Between: Smt. Bhaviri Suseela Sekhar …Petitioner and The Commissioner of Police, Cyberabad, Hyderabad and others …Respondents COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENTS 1 to 3 : AGP FOR HOME THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.15257 of 2007 ORDER: This writ petition is filed for the following substantive relief: “For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, the petitioner herein prays that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not providing the police protection to the petitioner herein to safeguard her property from the illegal activities of the fourth respondent in-spite of competent Civil Court’s injunction in her favour as arbitrary, illegal and quite contrary to law and consequently direct the respondents 1 to 3 to provide necessary police protection to safeguard her agricultural lands admeasuring Acs.3.16 guntas situated in Sy.No.3 of Peeramcheruvu Village, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, in accordance with law with all consequential reliefs.” At the hearing, there is no representation for the petitioner. The grievance of the petitioner is that some local people have encroached her land and when she approached the police, they refused to protect her land from such encroachment. In the counter-affidavit filed by the Inspector of Police, Narsingi Police Station, Cyberabad Commissionerate - third respondent, it is inter alia stated that the petitioner filed O.S.No.452 of 1998 in the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, West and South, Ranga Reddy District and that the same was decreed in her favour and against respondent No.4. It is further stated that another case, namely, L.G.C.No.7 of 2003 is pending before the Special Court under Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982. It is also stated that as the said Land Grabbing Case is pending, the police are not in a position to give protection to the land of the petitioner. From the facts referred to above, it is clear that the petitioner is holding a decree against respondent No.4. If respondent No.4 is causing undue interference in violation of the decree, the petitioner is entitled to seek appropriate protection from the Court, which granted decree in her favour. Unless such protection is obtained from the civil Court, the petitioner cannot approach the police for protecting her possession. In this view of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to approach the civil Court, which granted decree in her suit, seeking necessary police aid. As a sequel to disposal of main petition, WPMP.No.19249 of 2007 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 25th JUNE, 2010. kvni