IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION No. 16678 OF 2009 Between: Sk.Khaja Pasha …… petitioner AND The Commissioner of Police, Cyberabad Commissionerate, Gachibowli, Hyderabad and another. ......Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Counsel for the Respondents: The Court made the following:- THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH W.P. No.16678 of 2009 ORDER: This writ petition has been filed seeking Writ of Mandamus, declaring the inaction on the part of the respondents in taking any action on the complaint given by the petitioner on 02.12.2008, as illegal, arbitrary, unjust and consequently direct the respondents to act upon the said complaint dated 02.12.2008 and to take immediate action. The case of the petitioner is that he is the absolute owner and possessor of the plot bearing Nos.62 and 63, admeasuring 630 square yards situated in Survey Nos. 1 to 4 of Samatha Nagar, Zimkalawada Village, Balanagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. When some unsocial elements, including the members of Samatha Nagar Residents Welfare Association, tried to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the land of the petitioner, both the parties have approached before the Court of law. O.S.No.94 of 2008 was filed by the petitioner before the learned Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kukatpally, Ranga Reddy District and the same was decreed in his favour on 20.08.2008. When the petitioner started construction work, Yadaiah Goud, Bhasker Goud, Maniya Naik threatened and demanded some amount from the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner lodged a complaint dated 02.12.2008 before the 2nd respondent addressing a copy of the same to the 1st respondent and as there is no action on the part of the respondents, the petitioner has come up with the instant writ petition. The learned Government Pleader for Home, based on the written statement submitted by the 2nd respondent, Station House Officer, submitted that the petitioner has lodged a complaint on 02.12.2008 to the Station House Officer, Sanathnagar, Cyberabad narrating the above stated facts. Based on the said complaint, the respondent authorities have enquired into the matter wherein it is revealed that W.P.No.22836 of 2008 was filed by the said Association to demolish the illegal construction made by the petitioner and this Court granted the interim orders on 18.10.2008 directing the Deputy Commissioner, Kukatpally Circle, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Hyderabad to consider the representation of the Association. The petitioner also filed a suit in O.S.No.264 of 2008 on the file of the Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District against one T.Yella Rao and U.Venkatesh and Court below was pleased to grant interim injunction in I.A.No. 377 of 2008 dated 15.04.2008 in favour of the petitioner. The said Association also filed a suit in O.S.No.434 of 2008 on the file of the I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District, against the petitioner and others and the Court below granted the interim injunction on 19.01.2009 in I.A.No.836 of 2009 in O.S.No.434 of 2008. Aggrieved by the same the petitioner filed C.M.A.No. 564 of 2009 on the file of the District Judge, Ranga Reddy District. Further, it is also submitted that earlier, the petitioner filed a private complaint before the IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad with the similar issue and a case in Cr.No.73 of 2008 under Section 406, 427, 447, 120(b), 506 IPC was registered on the file of the Sanathnagar Police Station against the residents of Samathanagar and Secretary of Association and others. After investigation, the said crime was referred to as false case. It is submitted that the former President of the Association also lodged a complaint against the petitioner and others and based on the said complaint a case in Cr.No.89 of 2008 under Section 447, 468, 471, 474, 420 I.P.C was registered on the file of the Sanathnagar police station. After investigation, the said crime was referred as civil in nature and final report has been filed before the IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad. Eventually, it is submitted that based on the complaint lodged by the petitioner, having regard to the dispute exist between the petitioner and the Association, both the parties were called and advised them to get the redressal from the competent Courts, where the cases are pending. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the material on record. The main grievance of the petitioner is that though he lodged a complaint against some persons, the respondents did not take any action, so far, for which, the learned Government Pleader submitted that based on the complaint lodged by the petitioner and as some cases are pending before the Court of law, both the parties were called and advised them to settle the matter before the Court of law since the dispute between the parties exist civil in nature. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by the learned Government Pleader, I am of the considered opinion that it is obvious from the submissions made by the learned counsel that some cases and counter cases were filed by the parties and some of them are pending before the Court of law. Therefore, the petitioner and others were called and advised them to settle the matter before the appropriate forum. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that the respondents did not take any action on the complaint lodged by the petitioner. However, it is left open for the petitioner to get redressal from the competent Courts, if he so chooses. Accordingly, with the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of, at the threshold. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________________ JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH September 22, 2009. IVD/LSK