IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 550 of 2009 Between: U. Sachin Kumar S/o. U. Santosh Kumar R/o. H.No. 3-6-231, Maqdoommarg, Himayatnagar, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Government of A.P., Rep. by Principal Secretary, Home, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Commissioner of Police Cyberabad, Gachibowli. 3 The Deputy Commissioner of Police Madhapur Zone, Mahdapur, Ranga Reddy District. 4 The Station House Officer, Madhapur Police Station, Mahdapur, Ranga Reddy District. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 more particularly one in the nature of Mandamus declaring the action of 4th Respondent in harassing and threatening the petitioner to settle and compromise with land grabbers who are interfering with petitioners enjoyment of peaceful possession of Plot No. 55/H in Sy./No. 11/31 Part, admeasuring 500 sq. yards situated at Khanamet Village, Cyberabad, R.R. District as highly illegal, arbitrary and gross violation of principals of Natural justice and Article 21 of Constitution of India. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.MIRZASAFIULLA BAIG Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following : O R D E R:- The petitioner asserts that he is he absolute owner of Plot No.55/H in S.No.11/31 Part, admeasuring 500 sq. yards situated at Khanamet village, Cyberabad, R.R. District having acquired it under two registered sale deeds and he raised a boundary wall around the plot. While so, on 26.7.2008, when he visited his plot, he noticed that his boundary wall was partially damaged and the name of one Srinivas Reddy was written on the wall along with his Cell Phone styling himself as an owner of the above plot. He further states that Cr.No.6/ACB/Cr/2000 against his father is pending before the learned Principal Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases-cum-IV Addl. Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad and the said plot is under attachment vide orders dated 28.6.2005 passed by the Court in Crl.M.P.No.568 of 2005. When the land grabbers tried to grab the petitioner’s plot, his father gave a written complaint to the 4th respondent on 25.10.2008 stating that the above plot is attached on 28.6.2005. Now, the petitioner’s grievance is that the 4th respondent- Station House Officer, instead of taking action against illegal actions of the land grabbers, for the reasons best known to him, is harassing and threatening the petitioner to compromise the matter with the land grabbers and settle the same and the land grabbers in connivance with the 4th respondent are trying to interfere with his peaceful possession and dispossess him from the land in question by grabbing his plot. The 4th respondent-Station House Officer has filed a detailed counter affidavit inter alia denying the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition and stated that when the petitioner’s father filed a complaint 25.10.2008, he advised him to seek redressal in a competent civil Court as the respondents police cannot decide the title over the rights of the lands in question. Except this, the respondent has neither put any pressure on him nor forced him for a compromise with the land grabbers and the respondents have nothing to do with the matter which is purely civil in nature. The learned Government Pleader for Home appearing for the respondents, on instructions, has submitted that the 4th respondent never brought any pressure nor force on the petitioner to compromise the matter with the land grabbers, and only gave a piece of advice to approach the competent civil Court, inasmuch as the dispute is purely civil in nature. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties, and perused the material placed on record. Having regard to the stand taken by the 4th respondent that they have never interfered with the possession of the petitioner, much less threatened him to compromise the matter with the land grabbers, except advising the petitioner to approach the competent civil Court for redressal of his grievance, it cannot be said that the petitioner was harassed by the 4th respondent to compromise the matter with the land grabbers. Hence, there is no merit in the writ petition, and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ______________ N.V.RAMANA, J 28th January, 2009 bcj