Police duty-bound to implement court orders, says HC

The Hyderabad High Court has ruled that it is the duty of the police to obey the order of the court when it has ordered protection to individuals.

Justice M.S. Ramachandra Rao, while saying it was illegal of the Cyberabad police to not provide police protection to the petitioners, noted: “It is settled law that police aid to enforce the orders of injunction can be granted not only by the civil court in exercise of its power under Section 151 CrPC but also under Article 226 of the Constitution by this court.”

The judge was allowing a petition by Ms A. Bharathi and others challenging the inaction of the police in providing police aid to implement an order granted in their favour on September 24, 2009, by the Second Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy district. The court had restrained rival claimants from interfering with the possession of land at Hydershakote in Rajendranagar mandal.

Directing the police to

The High Court said that the police did not provide protection to the petitioners and rival occupants attempted to occupy land.

provide aid to the petitioners, the judge relied on a previous High Court judgement in Satyanarayana Tiwari v Station House Officer of Santhoshnagar Police Station, which stated: “No authority in the state, revenue or police, 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 the law and order and not allow the other party to contravene the injunction order and create law and order problem.”

The judge pointed out that the lower court had held that the petitioners had prima facie right and title in the property, and that rival claimants did not have any document. The rival claimants entered the premises, put up notice boards and tried to dig a borewell on the land.

The judge noted that as the police did not provide aid to the petitioners, the rival claimants had entered the land.

Allowing the case of the petitioners, Justice Ramachandra Rao directed the rival claimants to pay `10, 000 as costs to the petitioners.