THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.20943 of 2007 Date: 04.03.2008 Between: Nimmagadda Thimma Raju … Petitioner AND The State of Andhra Pradesh rep by, Principal Secretary to Home Department, Hyderabad. And others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri Nimmagadda Satyanarayana Counsel for respondents : G.P. for Home HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.20943 of 2007 ORDER:- This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to declare the action of respondents 1 to 6 in not providing police aid for cultivation of the petitioner’s lands of Ac.4.52 cents and Ac.0.87 cents comprised in R.S.No.639/2 and 641/2 of Buttayagudem village respectively and in not initiating necessary action on his complaints dated 30.5.2007 and 10.9.2007 as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 21, 300-A of the Constitution of India and the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. In his affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the petitioner stated that he is the owner and possessor of the above mentioned lands having purchased the same in the name of his wife from Geda Venkatarama Rao under registered sale deed dated 10.6.1958. The petitioner claims that after the death of his wife he succeeded to the property. The petitioner further pleaded that subsequent on the abolition of the estates under the Estates Abolition Act, 1948 the village was taken over by the Government and survey and settlement operations were conducted and that the Settlement Officer, Eluru granted Ryotwari patta in favour of the petitioner by order dated 31.5.1985, that the complaint filed by the Special Deputy Tahsildar (Tribal Welfare), Kota Ramachandrapuram seeking the petitioner’s ejection from the lands on the ground of contravention of provisions of Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Area (Land Transfer) Regulation 1 of 1959 as amended by Regulation 1 of 1970 was dismissed by the Special Deputy Collector (Tribal Welfare) by order dated 10.3.2004 and that the said order became final as no further appeal was filed against the same. The petitioner alleged that on 30.5.2007 at 10.30 A.M., when he was working in his land some persons by name Madakam Venkata Rao, K.Srinivas, Erakam Durga Rao and about 50 of their followers who are tribals of Thatithota village trespassed into his land and threatened to kill him and planted arrows and flags, that on his complaint made before respondent No.6, the latter registered crime No.29 of 2007 for the offence under Sections 143, 447, 506 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and that respondent No.6 did not undertake investigation or arrested the accused till now. The petitioner claimed that on 20.7.2007 when he prepared the land ready for transplantation with paddy crop, respondent No.7 alongwith his followers trespassed into the petitioner’s land and threatened to kill him with knives and arrows and when he approached respondent No.6, he refused to receive the report and advised the petitioner to approach respondents 2 to 5 for initiating proceedings under Sections 107 and 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and thereafter he sent complaint dated 10.9.2007 through registered post and acknowledgement due. On the strength of these allegations, the above-mentioned prayer is sought by the petitioner in this writ petition. No counter affidavit is filed by the respondents. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the view that the prayer for providing police protection to enable the petitioner to cultivate his lands cannot be granted. If the petitioner’s right to enjoy his property is sought to be violated by any person, he has common law remedies available. One such remedy is to file a civil suit before the court having the jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate the dispute and seek appropriate relief therein. The petitioner can also seek execution of the orders passed by the competent Court of law. The petitioner has also the remedy of filing appropriate criminal complaint with the jurisdictional police and if the police fail to take appropriate action, he has also the remedy of approaching the jurisdictional magistrate for giving appropriate directions to the police. Though Article 21 of the Constitution guarantees right to life and Article 300-A affords protection to the property of a citizen, these provisions are available to him if the State seeks to deny such rights to the citizens. The petitioner failed to bring to the notice of this Court any constitutional or legal provision which obligates the State to extend police protection to a citizen to ensure that no third parties interfere with the enjoyment of his property. The constitutional makers evidently realised that it is neither possible nor feasible to afford such a protection to every citizen in not making such a provision in the Constitution. It is therefore, not possible for this Court to grant the relief as sought for by the petitioner. If and when the petitioner approaches the competent Court and convince it to grant appropriate orders to protect his property, the State and its officers would then be duty bound to obey the orders of the Court, if any passed by it. Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.18542 of 2007 filed by the petitioner seeking interim relief is also dismissed. ___________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J Date:04.03.2008 mdaa