IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.1892 of 2006 Between : Mir Amzad Ali ..... PETITIONER AND 1) Hyderabad Urban Development Authority 2) SHO, PS Rajendra Nagar .....RESPONDENTS HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.1892 OF 2006 ORDER : This criminal petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the F.I.R. in crime No.499 of 2005 of Rajendra Nagar Police Station of Cyberabad Commissionerate. Subject matter of the report is survey No.42 in Bumruknuddoula Village, which is admittedly the land belonging to Hyderabad Urban Development Authority (HUDA). The A.E.O. of HUDA lodged the report before the Inspector of Police, Rajendra Nagar Police Station on 09.08.2005 alleging that the petitioner herein, who is the developer, had unauthorizedly encroached into government land in survey No.42 at Bumruknuddoula Village and constructed a house. On the said report, the Police registered the crime against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 447 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code. It is contended for the petitioner that he worked as Supervisor under Mohd.Yakubuddin and Abdul Rasheed Khan, who are the petitioners in W.P.No.19567/2005 in this Court. The said writ petitioners were claiming rights in survey Nos.40/AA/3 and 41/AA/3 of the said village. As such, they filed writ petition against HUDA and the Station House Officer, Rajendra Nagar Police Station seeking a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents and their subordinates to act in accordance with law and not to interfere with their possession and enjoyment of land and constructions in Ac.1-24 cents in survey Nos.40/AA/3 and 41/AA/3. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court at the stage of admission on 16.09.2005 with the following observations : “The learned Standing Counsel for HUDA was directed to get instructions in the matter. After getting instructions, the learned Standing Counsel submits that there is a boundary dispute between the petitioners and HUDA and therefore, the officials of the first respondent visited the land for inspection purpose. However, he does not dispute the legal position that even if there is a boundary dispute between HUDA and private persons, necessary action has to be taken in accordance with law and the officials of HUDA cannot resort to high-handed action.” The report in question in crime No.499 of 2005 was given few days prior to disposal of the above writ petition. It is evident from the above observations in the writ petition that there is a boundary dispute between the writ petitioners and HUDA regarding survey Nos.40, 41 and 42. When there are boundary disputes between the parties, which were taken note of by this court in the writ petition, it cannot be said that either the accused or his employers made any encroachment in survey No.42 belonging to HUDA. Thus, there is a bonafide claim for title in respect of the site, which is under occupation of employers of the accused, who were the writ petitioners. When there is a dispute regarding extent of land and when there is a bonafide dispute of title to the land in occupation of the writ petitioners and the accused, the question of taking cognizance of the offences under Sections 447 and 427 I.P.C. in respect of the same property cannot arise. As a corollary of the writ petition, this crime has no legs to stand. Accordingly, the criminal petition is allowed quashing the proceedings in crime No.499 of 2005 of Rajendra Nagar Police Station, against the petitioner. ________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDA RAJULU, J 23rd October, 2009 SUR