IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 23602 of 2007 Between: 1 Smt. Jagarapu Venkata Jyothsna W/o Ananda Kumar R/o 8/8-86-13/1, New VL Puram, Tilak Nagar, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District rep by her GPA Holder: Adireddy Apparao S/o Atchyutha Rao Rajahmundry. 2 Sri Adireddy Srinivasa Rao S/o Appa Rao Rajahmundry, East Godavari District. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 The District Registrar, Kakinada, East Godavari District. 2 The Superintendent of Police, Kakinada, East Godavari district. 3 Namala Ramachandra Rao, S/o Satyanarayana, R/o 16-36-30, 4th Street, Sambamurthy Nagar, Kakinada, East Godavari District. 4 Namala Siva Shankara Rao, S/o Ramachandra Rao, R/o 16-36-30, 4th Street, Sambamurthy Nagar, Kakinada, East Godavari District. 5 Namala Venkata Satyanarayana, S/o Ramachandra Rao, R/o 16-36-30, 4th Street, Sambamurthy Nagar, Kakinada, East Godavari District. 6 Namala Venkata Subba Rao, S/o Venkata Ramachandra Rao, R/o 16-36-30, 4th Street, Sambamurthy Nagar, Kakinada, East Godavari District. 7 Matha Venkata Lakshmi, W/o Rajendra Kumar, D/o 588-1-69, Market Veedhi, 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 a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus a) declaring the action of the 1st respondent in not considering my representation, dated 12-10-07 and is illegally and arbitrary and violation of our fundamental rights and; b) declaring the action of 2nd respondent in not taking any action basing on the representation dated 12-10-2007 and to provide protection to the petitioners as illegal, arbitrary and violation of fundamental rights of the petitioners as enumerated in the Constitution of India and consequently c) direct the respondents No.1 and 2 to take appropriate action on the representations of the petitioners dated 12-10-2007 & 12-10-2007 respectively and d) to pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR. KANAKAMEDALA RAVINDRA KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following Order: The petitioners claim that they are the owners of the property in question, and that respondent Nos. 3 to 7 with a view to grab their property fabricated certain documents, and on the basis of the said documents, they are making hectic attempts to sell the property to third parties. It is their grievance that though they made detailed representation dated 12.10.2007 to the 2nd respondent, namely the Superintendent of Police, Kakinada, East Godavari district, requesting him to take appropriate action against respondent Nos. 3 to 7 by registering criminal case, no action thereon had been taken till date. Hence, they seek appropriate directions. Respondent No.1 filed counter. Though the petitioners claim that they made representations to respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and that they had not acted on the same, the fact remains, the typed copy of the representation filed by them along with the writ petition shows that it is addressed to only respondent No.2. It is the specific case of respondent No.1 that no representation dated 12.10.2007, said to have been made by the petitioner has been received in their office. At any rate, a reading of the contents of the affidavit filed by the petitioner in support of the writ petition would disclose that he had made representation dated 12.10.2007 only to respondent No.2, namely the Superintendent of Police, Kakinada, East Godavari, to take appropriate action against respondent Nos. 3 to 7 by registering criminal case, as they are said to be interfering with their peaceful possession and making hectic attempts to sell the property owned by them by fabricating the documents. In view of the above, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with the following directions: The petitioner is again directed to make a representation to respondent No.2, enclosing copy of the representation earlier made to him, and on such representation being made, respondent No.2 shall consider the same and take appropriate action thereon in accordance with law. No costs. _______________ N.V. RAMANA, J. Dated: 25th January, 2008. USD/KSR