KANDAKATLA KRISHNA REDDY Vs. STATE OF TELANGANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondents 1 to 3 and Sri Kiran Palakurthi learned counsel appearing for the 4th respondent.

(2.) Petitioner claims that he is the owner of land to an extent of Ac.0.21 guntas in Sy.No.169/3/1 and Ac.0.21 guntas in Sy.No.169/3/2 of Chinthapally Revenue Village and Mandal, Nalgonda District, having purchased the same through registered sale deed dated 27.08.2019 and he was put in possession. Alleging that the 4th respondent was interfering in possession and enjoyment of the land, petitioner instituted O.S.No.380 of 2019 in the Court of Senior Civil Judge at Nalgonda. In I.A.No.1324 of 2019 in O.S.No.380 of 2019, the trial Court granted temporary injunction on 22.05.2020 and the said injunction order is in force. That being so, the 4th respondent continued to interfere in possession and enjoyment of the property. Therefore, petitioner seeks direction to grant police protection to enforce the injunction order granted in his favour. Petitioner alleges that soon after injunction order was granted, a request was made to the Station House Officer to provide police protection, but he has not considered the said request.

(3.) The 4th respondent filed counter affidavit. According to him he is the owner of land to an extent of Ac.3.03 guntas in Sy.No.169/EE2 of Chintapally Village and Mandal, Nalgonda District. Aggrieved by the alleged interference by the petitioner in possession and enjoyment of the above extent of land, he instituted O.S.No.358 of 2019 in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Nalgonda, praying to grant perpetual injunction. In I.A.No.1248 of 2019 in O.S.No.358 of 2019, the trial Court granted injunction in his favour. However, the interference continued. Therefore, he lodged a police complaint and on his complaint Cr.No.69 of 2020 was registered on 14.06.2020 in Chinthapalli Police Station for the offences under Sections 447, 427, 506 r/w.Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. It is therefore, the case of the 4th respondent that petitioner has no valid claim and that he has subsisting injunction order and petitioner cannot seek police protection to dislodge the petitioner from possession and enjoyment of the property.