IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.19361 of 2008 Between: 1 Smt. Saragada Thotamma W/o. Late Sanyasi R/o. Sivaru Boddapalem, Hamlet of Kallivanipalem Village, Near Boyapalem, Gambhiram Mathura, Visakhapatnam. 2 Smt. Gudla Ramayamma W/o. Late Sri Ramulu R/o. Boddapalem, Kallivanipalem Village, Near Boyapalem, Gambhiram Mathura, Visakhapatnam. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The State of A.P. rep. by its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. 2 The Superintendent of Police, Visakhapatnam Rural, Camp Office Near Andhra University, Visakhapatnam. 3 The Station House Officer, Anandapuram Police Station, Visakhapatnam. 4 P.S.N. Raju S/o. Late Krishnamaraju Plot No.401, East Point Colony, Visakhapatnam. 5 Sadi Venkanna @ Venkayya S/o. Mutyalu R/o. Boddapalem, Near Bheemill, Visakhapatnam. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents 1 to 3 in not taking any action pursuant to the complaint lodged by the petitioner on 27.08.2008 and 28-08-2008 and also declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in supporting the R4 and R5 and encouraging them to trespass into petitioners land, though they threatened to eliminate the petitioners as arbitrary and illegal and consequently direct the respondents 1 to 3 to cause enquiry on complaint dated 27.08.2008 and 28.08.2008 and to take action in accordance with law. Counsel for the Petitioners: MR.N.SUBBA RAO Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 to 3: GP FOR HOME Counsel for Respondent Nos.4 and 5: MR. K. JYOTHI PRASAD The Court made the following: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.19361 OF 2008 ORDER: It is the grievance of the petitioners that they have lodged a complaint dated 27.08.2008 before the 3rd respondent- Station House Officer, Anandapuram Police Station, Visakhapatnam, and another complaint dated 28.08.2008 before the 2nd respondent- Superintendent of Police, Visakhapatnam Rural, and the 3rd respondent, complaining that respondents 4 and 5 have been trying to trespass into their lands, but no action has been taken thereon till date and, on the other hand, the 3rd respondent is supporting the respondents 4 and 5. Earlier, the 3rd respondent- Sub Inspector of Police, Anandapuram Police Station, Visakhapatnam District, filed a counter- affidavit stating that no such complaints dated 27.08.2008 and 28.08.2008 have been lodged by the petitioners and also denying the allegation that he is supporting and encouraging the respondents 4 and 5 for their trespass into the land of the petitioners. But however, after filing of a reply affidavit by the petitioners along with acknowledgments in proof of receipt of the said complaints by the 2nd and 3rd respondents, an additional counter-affidavit has been filed by the 3rd respondent stating that the complaint lodged before the 3rd respondent police station was received by a Police Constable and Head Constable, but neither they made any entry nor informed him about receipt of the said complaint, and that the complaint lodged before the 2nd respondent was received by him only on 12.09.2008 i.e. after filing of the earlier counter-affidavit. It is further stated in the additional counter-affidavit that soon after receipt of the complaint, the 3rd respondent conducted preliminary enquiry, wherein it is revealed that the dispute between the petitioners and the unofficial respondents is civil in nature and to that effect a detailed report was submitted to the 2nd respondent on 14.09.2008. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the 1st respondent is directed to enquire into the allegations made against the 3rd respondent with regard to his interference in the civil disputes between the petitioner and the respondents 4 and 5 and take appropriate action as per law. Further, the 3rd respondent is directed not to interfere in the civil disputes between the petitioner and the respondents 4 and 5 without following the due process of law. With the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. _________________ JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU 11th December, 2008 IBL