HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION Nos.1034 & 1053 of 2008 Dated: 01-02-2008 Between: Devawath Chambli Bai. … Petitioner And The Commissioner of Police, Cyberabad & others. … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION Nos.1034 & 1053 of 2008 COMMON ORDER: Since both these writ petitions raise same questions of law and fact, they are being disposed of by this common order. Parties are also same in both the writ petitions. 2. In W.P.No.1034 of 2008, the petitioner seeks directions by way of Mandamus declaring the action of respondents 3 and 4 in interfering with the rights of the petitioner over the petition schedule land, whereas in W.P.No.1053 of 2008, the same petitioner seeks directions by way of Mandamus to declare the inaction on the part of respondents 2 and 3 in not registering the complaints filed by the petitioner, on 27th and 29th of December 2007 against respondents 5 and 6. 2. The petitioner claims ownership and possession over a piece of land admeasuring about 1200 sq.yards situated in Survey Nos.11/19 to 11/21 of Khanamet village of Serlingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. It is stated that the said land was purchased by the mother of the petitioner through a registered sale deed dated 29th of July 1982 from Gurukul Ghatakeswar Trust, rep. by its General Power of Attorney holder one K.Satyanarayana Rao. On 27th of December 2007, the petitioner lodged a complaint with respondents 1 and 2 stating that on that day, respondents 5 and 6, alongwith anti social elements, went to the petitioner’s land and abused her and her husband in filthy language and threatened them with dire consequences, directing them to vacate the said piece of land. Similarly on 29th of December 2007 also, another complaint was filed to that effect. It is the grievance of the petitioner that inspite of lodging those two complaints, no action has been taken by respondents 2 and 3, but on the other hand, respondents 3 and 4, at the instance of respondents 5 and 6, went into the land of the petitioner on 06.01.2008 and threatened her and her husband with dire consequences if they do not vacate the petition schedule land and also threatened to foist false cases against them. 3. However, the learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 and 2, on instructions, submits that pursuant to the complaints made by the petitioner, a case has been registered and the matter is at the stage of preliminary investigation. It is further submitted that all the other allegations levelled by the petitioner against respondents 3 and 4, are baseless. 4. Asmuch as it is stated now that a case has been registered on the complaints made by the petitioner and that the matter is under investigation, no direction need be given to respondents 1 to 4 to register a case. When a complaint is lodged against any one, it is always open for the Police to make preliminary investigation before taking further steps in accordance with the provisions of Cr.P.C. 4. In view of the submissions made by the learned Government Pleader, no further directions need be given in these writ petitions, which are accordingly closed. No order as to costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 1st February 2008 ajr