IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 7244 of 2008 Between: 1 N.Hanumnath Rao, S/o.N.Raghavender Rao R/o.1-10-194 Ashok Nagar, Hyderabad 2 N.V.Narsimha Rao S/o.N.Raghavender Rao R/o.1-10-194 Ashok Nagar Hyderabad 3 T.Ranuka Devi D/o.N.Raghavender Rao R/o.1-10-194 Ashok Nagar Hyderabad 4 V.Anuradha D/o.N.Raghavender Rao R/o.1-10-194 Ashok Nagar Hyderabad 5 N.Rekha D/o.N.Raghavender Rao R/o.1-10-194 Ashok Nagar Hyderabad ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 State of A.P., Rep.by its Secretary (Home), Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. 2 Superintendent of Police, Khammam District, Khammam 3 Deputy Superintendent of Police, Yellandu, Khammam District 4 Station House Officer Yellandu Police Station Khammam District .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioners: MR.SEKHAR for MR.P.VENUGOPAL Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following : ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed for a writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the Police in not granting Police protection to the petitioners’ property viz., land admeasuring 3978 square yards bearing D.No.5-2-71 (corresponding to old Number.1172) situated near Sub-Jail, Yellandu, Khammam District, as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India. The petitioners sought for a consequential direction to the respondents to grant Police protection in respect of the petitioners’ property referred to above. Heard Sri Sekhar, leaned Counsel for the petitioners, and perused the record. The petitioners claim to be the owners of the abovementioned property and they got a decree dated 20- 10-2000 in O.S.No.59 of 1992 on the file of the learned Junior Civil Judge, Yellandu, against the Government. The petitioners also filed W.P.No.8836 of 2007 against the action of the Government in authorizing certain third parties to use part of the abovementioned land as ingress and egress to the lands over which pattas were given by the Government to the said third parties. When twenty (20) individuals forcibly occupied the petitioners’ lands, they gave a complaint to respondent No.4, who registered a crime vide F.I.R.No.138 of 2007 against them and arrested them. The petitioners averred that after their enlargement on bail, the said persons have again forcibly encroached the petitioners’ property, on which, the petitioners again gave a complaint. On these facts, the petitioners filed the present Writ Petition seeking Police protection to enable them to enjoy the said property. From the narration of the above facts, it is clear that on the complaint given by the petitioners, the respondents registered a criminal case and arrested them. The learned Counsel for the petitioners stated that even a charge sheet has been filed in the said case. The respondents have discharged their statutory duty by taking necessary steps on the complaint filed by the petitioners. If despite the same, the accused in the said case again sought to interfere with the petitioners’ property, the petitioners are not remedy less. The petitioners have not given any reason why they have not approached the Court of competent jurisdiction to restrain the intruders into their property from interfering with their property or for their eviction. The petitioners have, thus, an effective remedy available under common law. In the guise of claiming right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners cannot seek Police protection for convenient and uninterrupted enjoyment of their property against the third parties. Unless the petitioners put the process of law into motion, by approaching the competent Court of law and getting appropriate relief, there is no obligation on the Police to interfere in the civil disputes between the petitioners and third parties. On the above premises, the Writ Petition is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the Writ Petition, WPMP.No.9509 of 2008 filed by the petitioners for interim relief is also dismissed. ______________________ (C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J) 3rd April, 2008 lur