Guj HC Orders Removal Of Police Protection Granted Mechanically For Fencing Disputed Land [Read Judgment]

The Gujarat High Court has ordered the removal of police protection granted mechanically to a person only for enabling him to fence the land which was subject of civil litigation and in respect of which a district court had ordered status quo.

Justice AP Thaker asked the authorities concerned not to grant any police protection to the respondent for the land in question while asking the person concerned to approach the lower appellate court for seeking police protection.

The court said so as it allowed the prayer made by one Daljibhai Bhagwanbhai Chaudhary urging the court to direct the state and the police to not grant police protection to Respondent No.5 for the land in question in view of the civil litigation pending between them.

"A perusal of the application for police protection, it appears that he sought police protection for the purpose of putting fencing around the suit land and the police has mechanically granted the same, without taking into consideration that the Civil Appeal is still pending and there is an order of status quo passed by the appellate Court," said Justice Thaker.

In the instant case, the court was informed that Respondent No. 5 claims to be the owner of 47,531 sq mt land in Nandej while Chaudhary was said to be cultivating it for over 50 years now.

Chaudhary's counsel Vishal Dave informed the court that Respondent No.5 had filed a civil suit in the year 2005 for declaration and permanent injunction for the said land, which came to be dismissed in 2011. He then preferred an appeal against the dismissal wherein a lower appellate court directed both the parties to maintain status quo while the appeal remains pending.

A civil suit filed by the applicant before a District Court in Ahmedabad is also pending.

The applicant told the high court that despite the pendency of the appeal and the suits, Respondent No.5 made an application for grant of police protection for construction of a compound wall on the said land.

The counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, claimed that the applicant and others have been harassing her client to grab land.

She contended that earlier the land had barbed wire fencing which required repeated repairs due to which the respondent decided to fence the boundary with cement sheets and that the police protection was given to see that law and order situation is maintained as the applicant had attacked him on various occasions.

She also submitted that the order of status quo does not mean that he cannot carry out any agricultural operations in the land in question and that putting up fencing will not change the nature of the land.

The high court, however, said, "this submission is not tenable in the eye of law, as by putting up fencing on the disputed land it will affect the nature of the land, which may not be permitted without any order from the concerned lower appellate Court. Respondent no.5 would have approached the lower appellate Court for putting up fencing in the suit land, when the matter is already pending before it."

The bench also took note of the fact that when the suit was pending before the trial court, Respondent No.5 had filed an application for getting police protection and the same was allowed.

"Respondent No.5 could have approached the lower appellate Court for seeking necessary police protection as has been done by him pending the suit before the trial Court.

"Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances, it is clearly found that there is substance in the say of the present applicant that the police authority should not have granted protection mechanically and respondent no.5 could have approached the appellate Court for seeking police protection by preferring an application. Therefore, in view of the civil litigation pending between the parties and order of status quo granted therein, this application is allowed so far as prayer (A) is concerned and, it is directed that no police protection be given to respondent no.5 for the land in question, however, it is open for respondent no.5 to approach the lower appellate Court for this purpose," he ordered.

The court, however, did not grant the prayer of the applicant for police protection, saying he too may approach the appellate court for the same. 

Read the Judgment Here