IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No: 17963 of 2004 BETWEEN: Smt. R. Ratnakumari, W/o R. Babu Rao, R/o Railway Colony, 43-5- 11, Visakhapatnam ... PETITIONER AND 1 The Govt. of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Secretary, Home Department, Hyderabad. 2 The Commissioner of Police, Visakhapatnam. 3 The Circle Inspector, III Town Police Station, Visakhapatnam. 4 K. Mahender Patro, S/o K.L. Naidu, III Town Police Station, Visakhapatnam 5 Nalla S.S. Prakash Rao, S/o Nalla Apparao, R/o Plot No.32, Dasapalli Hills, Visakhapatnam ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a Writ or order or orders or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents 2 to 5 herein in interfering with the peaceful possession of the petitioner and their family members situated in Survey No.14/2, Patta No.936/A, admeasuring 4787 Sq. yards bearing No.3-2-62, Chinna Waltair, Visakhapatnam and trying to dispossess them from lawful possession as illegal, arbitrary, abuse and misuse of statutory power and consequentially direct the respondents not to interfere in petitioners landed property. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.M.L.ALI Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following: ORDER: Petitioner seeks a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents 2 to 5 herein in interfering with the peaceful possession of the petitioner and their family members situated in Survey No.14/2, Patta No.936/A, admeasuring 4787 Sq. yards bearing No.3-2-62, Chinna Waltair, Visakhapatnam and trying to dispossess him from lawful possession as illegal, arbitrary, abuse and misuse of statutory power and consequentially direct the respondents not to interfere in his landed property. 2. The second respondent/ Commissioner of Police, Visakhapatnam filed a counter stating that the fifth respondent, resident of Plot No.32, Daspalla Hills, Visakhapatnam submitted a representation for police protection as the family members of Late Dasari Polayya were trying to trespass into his property in Sy.No.14/2 and trying to raise temporary thatched shed. On a perusal of the said application dated 06.08.2004 the Commissioner directed the Inspector, East Circle/third respondent to provide necessary police protection to facilitate the fifth respondent to enable construction of boundary fencing. It is stated that the fifth respondent also produced records, according to which the land was registered in the name of his grandfather. Thereafter, he filed a suit for partition, which was decreed and as there was some prima facie title in favour of the fifth respondent the police protection was given to prevent the third parties from interfering with his peaceful possession. Insofar as the allegations made by the petitioner that the police officials forcibly trespassed into their land and behaved in most rude manner, it is stated that the police have nothing to do with the disputes with regard to the immovable property. Only on the basis of a complaint filed by the fifth respondent that the petitioner and his family trespassed into his land, a case in Cr.No.363 of 2004 was registered for the offence under Sections 447, 341, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal code against the petitioner and her husband and others and took up investigation. The other allegations that the police trespassed into the property of the petitioner and they were mercilessly beaten with hands and legs and forcibly boarded them into the jeep and took them to II Town Police Station, have all been denied. 3. Insofar as the civil disputes are concerned, it is for the petitioner to resolve the same before appropriate civil Court but insofar as the police excessive is concerned, as the official respondents have denied all the allegations of the petitioner, the said disputed questions of fact cannot be decided in the writ petition. As the claim of the petitioner itself is in dispute, as the fifth respondent is claiming right title over the said property, the question of issuing a Writ of Mandamus directing the official respondents not to interfere with the alleged possession of the petitioner in respect of said property does not arise. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________ V. ESWARAIAH, J April 24, 2008 DSK