SATYANARAYANA TIWARI Vs. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ appeal is directed against the disposal of W.P. Mo. 1935/82. In that writ petition the appellant herein sought for a writ of mandamus or other appropriate direction against respondents 1 to 3 Police Officers to render police help to him in maintaining his possession of the suit land bearing S. No. 45 of Kandikal Village, Charminar taluk, Hyderabad District, which formed the subject-matter of O.S. 1903/81 on the file of the Third Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, as per the directions issued in I.A. 3510/81 on 29th September, 1981. That order was conformed by the Chief Judge, City Civil Court in C.M.A. 189/81. C.R.P. Ho. 3258/81 filed agamsi the judgment therein was dismissed by this court. In the result there is a temporary injunction order pending disposal of the suit in favour of the appellant here in restraining respondents 4 and 5 from interfering with his possession by themselves or through their servants or agents. It is the case of the appellant that upon his application seeking police help to protect his possession, the court directed police help to be given to him. That order was not varied by the High Court which dismissed the Civil Revision Petition. In the result, there is not only a temporary injunction order in favour of the appellant but also a direction by the civil court to render all police help to protect his possession, so that, the temporary injunction order may be effectively enforced. Notwithstanding such an order, it is the complaint of the appellant, that the police is not rendering any help and the respondents 4 and 5 are likely to dispossess him. He, therefore, sought the issuance of a writ of mandamus or an appropriate direction. That writ petition was disposed by our learned brother Jeevan Reddy, J. While disposing of the writ petition the learned single Judge observed:

(2.) It is the grievance of the appellant that since the writ petition was disposed and the police is not rendering any help, respondents 4 and 5 are trying to take the law into their own hands and dispossess him.

(3.) The legal position as observed by the learned single Judge does not admit of any doubt that the orders of the Civil Court prevail on the question of possession. Any anterior or subsequent enquiry and finding of the police or any other authority cannot nullify the finding of the civil court especially when that finding has been upheld by this court by dismissing the Civil Revision Petition. The only authority that can vary that finding is the Supreme Court. None of the parties in this case have moved the Supreme Court questioning the dismissal of the Civil Revision Petition. That being the position no authority in the State, revenue or pol'ce, can ignore the finding of the Civil Court or refuse to take steps to see that the order of the civil court is implemented and the party, in whose favour there is the order of the civil court gets all help to maintain his possession. It is by that method that the police have to maintain the law and order and not allow the other party to contravene the injunction order and create a law and order problem.