THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.9508 OF 2010 Dated 26th April, 2010 Between: Medapureddy Sivagiri Rao …Petitioner And The Superintendent of Police and six others …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Sri D.V.Chalapathi Rao Counsel for the respondents: AGP for Home The Court made the following ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to set aside proceedings dated 14.04.2010 issued by respondent No.7 in purported exercise of his powers under Section 144(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C) as illegal and arbitrary. I have heard Sri D.V.Chalapathi Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for the respondents. The petitioner and certain third parties belonging to Schedule Caste are involved in a civil dispute over an extent of Acs.54.34 cents of land. The petitioner’s suit filed for permanent injunction bearing O.S. No.173 of 1997 on the file of the Court of Civil Judge, Kakinada against one Yenugupalli Pallaiah and 23 others was dismissed. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed A.S.No.178 of 2007 before the appellate Court. Against the order directing police aid in favour of the respondents in the appeal, the petitioner filed CRP No.122 of 2008 and this Court is stated to have set aside the said order. While the said appeal is pending, the opposite parties gave a complaint against the petitioner and nine others, which was registered as FIR No.142 of 2010 under Section 3 (1) (x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and Section 324 read with 34 IPC. In this backdrop, respondent No.5 sent report dated 12.04.2010 to respondent No.7 to the effect that in view of the incidents that had occurred, there is a reasonable apprehension of disturbance to peace and public tranquillity in the area. On the basis of the said report, respondent No.7 passed the impugned order. At the hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contended that respondent No.7 has passed the said order purportedly covering Acs.54.34 cents in Survey No.66/1, whereas in the name of the said order, the land belonging to the petitioner and situated in Survey No.66/2 is being taken possession of by the police and usufruct is being harvested by them. Under Section 144(5) of Cr.P.C, an order passed under Sub- Section (2) of the said provision can be rescinded or altered either suo motu or on an application filed for this purpose by any person aggrieved, by the Executive Magistrate. The petitioner has, therefore, an effective remedy of approaching the Executive Magistrate with an application for rescinding the impugned order. On such application being made, respondent No.7 shall pass an appropriate order. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that while the impugned order merely prohibited movement of more than 2 persons, in the guise of implementing the said order, the police have been harvesting the usufruct. In my opinion, the police do not have such a power. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of by permitting the petitioner to make an appropriate application under Section 144(5) of Cr.P.C. If such an application is filed, respondent No.7 shall dispose of the same after giving opportunity to both the parties within a period of one (1) week from the date of receipt of such application. The police and Revenue officials shall not in any manner meddle with the usufruct available in the land. As a sequel to disposal of main petition, WPMP No.12277 of 2010 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 26th April, 2010 vrn