IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 22434 of 2008 Between: Bandi Satyanarayanamma W/o.Dr.B.Ranga Rao R/o.Kakinada, East Godavari District ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Mandal Executive Magistrate/Tahasildar Kakinada Rural Mandal at Kakinada, East Godavari District 2 The Superintendent of Police, East Godavari District at Kakinada 3 The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Kakinada East Godavari District 4 The Inspector of Police (Rural),Kakinada East Godavari District 5 The Station House officer, Sarpavaram P.S. Kakinada Mandal, East Godavari District 6 The Station House officer,I Town Police station Kakinada, East Godavari District 7 Kalapala Shivaji S/o.Hajaraiah D.No.3-17-5/6, Godarigunta,Kakinada East Godavari 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 to issue writ or direction particularly in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ declaring the action of the respondents 2 to 5 in not taking steps to protect the possession of the petitioner over the land admeasuring Ac.0.21 cents in SY.No.184/33-A of Valasapakala village, Kakinada Rural mandal, E.G.District as illegal, void and arbitrary, and pass Counsel for the Petitioner : MR. V.R.AVULA Counsel for the Respondents : GP FOR HOME The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.22434 OF 2008 ORDER : The petitioner herein claims to be lawful owner and possessor of Ac.0.21 cents of land situated in Sy.No.184/33-A of Valasapakala Village, Kakinada Rural Mandal, E.G. District having purchased the same under a Registered Sale Deed, dated 18.09.2007. On account of a dispute raised by the 7th respondent herein, it appears that proceedings were initiated before the Mandal Executive Magistrate, Kakinada Rural under Section 145 of Cr.P.C. After hearing both the parties, the Mandal Executive Magistrate, Kakinada Rural by order dated 13.3.2007 in M.C.No.41 of 2006 while holding that the petitioner herein is in possession of the disputed land directed that the petitioner shall continue in possession and that 7th respondent herein shall not enter into the land till he gets a declaration from the competent civil Court having jurisdiction and gets possession following due process of law. The petitioner alleges that in spite of the said order, the 7th respondent has been attempting to interfere with the possession of the petitioner and left with no alternative she made representation dated 14.7.2008 requesting the respondents 2 to 5 to provide necessary police protection since she is apprehending danger to her life and property in the hands of the 7th respondent. Alleging that the respondents 2 to 5 failed to take any action, the present writ petition is filed. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Home appearing for the respondents 2 to 6. As could be seen from the material on record, the petitioner made representations to the respondents 2 to 6 on 14.7.2008 followed by several reminders. In the circumstances and particularly in view of the order of the 1st respondent, dated 13.3.2007, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the respondents 2 to 5 to consider the representations of the petitioner in the light of the earlier orders passed by the 1st respondent dated 13.3.2007 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. No costs. _____________ G. ROHINI, J. Dt. 23.10.2008 gbs Note:- CC by tomorrow. (B/o) gbs