THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.4204 of 2011 ORDER: In this writ petition, petitioner seeks a mandamus declaring the action of the second respondent – Commissioner of Police, Cyberabad Commissionerate, Gachi Bowli, Hyderabad, in not taking action in pursuance of his representation, dated 18.02.2011 as illegal and arbitrary and consequently, direct respondents 1 and 2 to forthwith take action against respondents 3 and 4 for causing their interference in the civil disputes at the instance of the fifth respondent. In representation, dated 18.02.2011, which was addressed by the petitioner to the first respondent - Director General of Police, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Lakdikapool, Hyderabad, it is stated that he is in possession of plot No.22/A situated at Street No.1, Patrikanagar, Madhapur, Hyderabad. It is further stated that the fifth respondent along with five others trespassed into his property, removed the watchman’s belongings therefrom and manhandled the watchman and his family members. It is also stated that in view of the alleged trespass, he requested the police to take action against the fifth respondent. It is the case of the petitioner that he is the owner of plot admeasuring 340 sq.yards covered by Survey No.78 situated at Street No.1, Patrikanagar, Madhapur Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, having purchased by him vide registered sale deed, dated 19.07.2000. It is stated that every since the date of purchase, he is in possession but at the instance of the fifth respondent, respondents - police are interfering with the civil disputes and he seeks the relief by way of direction to the respondents – police to take action on his representation, dated 18.02.2011. Counter-affidavits are filed by the fourth respondent – Circle-Inspector of Police, Madhapur Police Station, Ranga Reddy District, as well as the fifth respondent. In the counter-affidavit filed by the fourth respondent, while denying various allegations made by the petitioner, it is stated that the complaint was lodged by the fifth respondent before the police, Madhapur on 03.05.2010 stating that she is the lawful owner of the house premises bearing No.1-95/5/5 plot No.5 in Survey No.77 of Patrikanagar and there is interference by the petitioner along with anti- social elements and threatened the watchman and his wife to leave the premises. Based on the said complaint, a case was registered in Crime No.285 of 2010 under Sections 448, 501 and 506 IPC. Investigation made in the aforesaid crime revealed that the fifth respondent has purchased plot No.5 in Survey No.77 of Patrikanagar on 19.06.1996 from its owners E.Mallaiah and others. It is further stated that both are claiming one and the same piece of land with different documents, which are showing different survey numbers. It is also stated that the fourth respondent has denied the allegation of the petitioner that they are interfering at the instance of the fifth respondent with the possession of the petitioner. In similar lines, a separate counter-affidavit is filed by the fifth respondent. It is stated therein that as there was interference by the petitioner, she filed O.S.No.922 of 2002 in the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, West and South, Ranga Reddy District, and the same was decreed on 24.01.2003 and it has become final. It is also stated that with regard to very same property, O.S.No.249 of 2003 was filed by the petitioner for permanent injunction on the file of III Additional Senior Civil Judge (FTC), Ranga Reddy District, and the same was dismissed vide judgment, dated 11.12.2009. Although it is contended by Ms. S.Nanda, learned counsel for the petitioner that there is interference by the police in civil disputes, it appears prima facie that with regard to very same premises, there were two suits, one filed by the petitioner and the other by the fifth respondent. The suit filed by the petitioner was dismissed and the suit filed by the fifth respondent was decreed by recording that the fifth respondent is in possession of the suit schedule property. As much as the said judgments have become final, it is not open for the petitioner to plead that he is in possession of the property in question and there is interference by the fifth respondent. As much as there was a complaint by the fifth respondent in May, 2010 alleging trespass and interference by the petitioner and others and it was registered in Crime No.285 of 2010, it cannot be said that the investigation being made into the aforesaid crime cannot be termed as interference by the police in civil disputes. In view of the judgments rendered by the civil Courts decreeing O.S.No.922 of 2002 filed by the fifth respondent and dismissing O.S.No.249 of 2003 filed by the petitioner, no direction can be issued as prayed for. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of her argument that the police cannot interfere in civil disputes, relied on the judgment in the case of WAZIR CHAND v. THE STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH[1] but having regard to the fact that the civil suit filed by the fifth respondent for injunction with regard to very same property was decreed and the complaint was also filed by him as early as in May, 2010 alleging trespass by the petitioner, the judgment relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner would not render any assistance in support of the case of the petitioner. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any merit in this writ petition for issuance of directions as prayed for. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. However, if the petitioner claims any right over the subject property, this does not preclude him to move the civil Court for declaratory relief. No order as to costs. _______________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 6th APRIL, 2011. kvni [1] AIR 1954 SC 415