THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO :23717 of 2008 Date: 2.6.2010 Between: Sri A. Vijaya Kumar Babu ..... PETITIONER AND The Commissioner of Police and others. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioners: Smt. M. Venkateswari Counsel for the Respondents : Govt.Pleader for Home The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No :23717 of 2008 ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in not acting on the petitioner’s complaints dated 4.10.2008 and 25.10.2008 against raising unauthorised constructions in open land bearing Plot No. 82 admeasuring 437.5 sq. yds., or 365.79 sq. mtrs., in Survey No.9 (old No. 66/14), under Ward No.3, Block No.14 situated at Rock Town, Mansoorabad Village, Saroornagar Revenue Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, as illegal and arbitrary. I have heard Smt. M.Venkateswari, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home. In his affidavit, the petitioner pleaded that while he is the owner of the above mentioned property, on 4.10.2008, he was shocked to see that some people were making efforts to raise a structure in the open land by digging pits. That when he tried to stop the said activity, they refused to stop the said work. It is further stated that the petitioner approached Respondent No.3 with a report for taking action against persons who are raising the structures. The petitioner’s grievance is that even after a subsequent report given on 25.10.2008, no action has been taken. A counter affidavit has been filed by the Inspector of Police, L.B. Nagar Police Station, Cyberabad Commissionerate, wherein it is claimed that the Deputy Collector and Tahsildar, Saroornagar Mandal allotted an extent of 1750 sq.yds., in Survey No.66/15 situated at Mansoorabad Village, Saroornagar Mandal to the respondents for construction of the office of the Deputy Commissioner, L.B. Nagar Zone, Hyderabad vide his Memo No.B/902/2008,dated 7.7.2008. That in pursuance of the said Memo, the Mandal Surveyor along with the Village Revenue Officer, identified the said land and submitted report dated 7.7.2008 along with location sketch and that the Mandal Surveyor and Mandal Revenue Inspector were directed to inspect, demarcate and handover the land to the respondents. It is further stated that the Mandal Revenue Inspector, conducted a panchanama on 7.7.2008 and handed over the land to the respondents and that immediately thereafter, the A.P. State Police Housing Corporation obtained required permission from various departments and commenced construction of Office of the Deputy Commissioner of Police, L.B. Nagar Zone, Cyberabad. That the petitioner gave his report on 4.10.2008, wherein he stated that he is the owner of Plot No.82 admeasuring 437-5 sq. yds., in Survey No.66/14 and that when he visited the plot, he found excavation work going on and that on receipt of the said report, the deponent addressed a letter to the Deputy Collector and Tahsildar, Saroornagar Mandal seeking clarification of the land whether the land allotted in favour of the respondents falls in Survey No.66/14 as claimed by the petitioner, or in Survey No.66/15. It is further stated that the Deputy Collector and Tahsildar, Saroornagar, in his letter dated 22.11.2008 clarified that the land demarcated and handed over to the respondents was in Survey No.66/15, which is a Government land. It is further stated that on a further report given by the petitioner on 31.10.2008, Crime No. 1074/2008 was registered on 4.11.2008 for offences under Sections 447 and 427 of I.P.C. and during the course of investigation, it was established that the construction work was going on in Survey No. 66/15, which is different from the land in Survey No.66/14, over which, the petitioner is making claim. It is also stated that the respondent got issued notice under Section 91(a) of Cr.P.C. to the petitioner on 6.12.2008 for production of the sanctioned layout in Survey No.66/14 along with link documents and that having received the said notice, the petitioner got issued a reply through his legal advisor, which is termed as evasive. It is further stated that this Court by order dated 4.12.2008, ordered status-quo to be maintained in respect of land in Survey No. 66/14, and that the construction was carried out in Survey No. 66/15 and taking advantage of the interim order, the petitioner is obstructing construction by the police department in Survey No. 66/15. From the perusal of the averments contained in the respective pleadings, it is evident that there is a dispute regarding identity of the property. The two reports given by the petitioner were based on the premise that certain third parties have encroached into his land situated in Survey No. 66/14; whereas respondents have taken a stand that while the petitioner’s reports were registered as a criminal case, they have been carrying on construction activity in Survey No.66/15. A perusal of the prayer in the writ petition shows that the grievance of the petitioner is confined to the alleged inaction on the part of the respondents in registering the crime on his reports. As noted above, in the counter affidavit, it is clearly stated that in pursuance of the second report dated 25.10.2008 given by the petitioner, Crime No.1074/08 was registered on 4.11.2008. In view of the serious disputes between the parties, it is neither proper nor appropriate to give a finding with respect to the issue whether the land over which the construction is being made by the respondents is situated in Survey No.66/15 or in Survey No.66/14, as that issue falls outside the scope of this writ petition. It would suffice for the purpose of the present writ petition to note that the grievance of the petitioner that his complaints went unheeded, does not any longer survive in view of the registration of the crime by the respondents. While relegating the parties to an appropriate forum with respect to the claim over the property, the writ petition is disposed of with the direction to the respondents to complete the investigation and file appropriate report before the Jurisdictional Magistrate expeditiously. It is made clear that the disposal of this writ petition would not affect the pending Contempt Case No. 1678 of 2008, filed by the petitioner against the respondents. No costs. __________________________ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY,J DATE: 2nd June, 2010 pnb