THE HONBLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.1579 of 2008 ORDER: This writ petition is ﬁled seeking a declaration that the alleged action of the respondents 2 and 3 in summoning the petitioner to the police station and threatening to compromise O.S.No.6 of 2008 on the ﬁle of the Court Senior Civil Judge, Sangareddy and, thus, interfering with civil disputes between the petitioners and the respondents 4 and 5 as arbitrary and illegal. It is stated that the petitioners are the joint owners and possessors of the land admeasuring Ac.2.20 gts situated in Sy.No.520 of Patancheruvu village, Medak District. Since the respondents 4 and 5 herein were attempting to interfere with the possession of the petitioners and also resorted to dmaging the standing crops, the petitioners lodged a complaint before respondents 2 and 3. However, instead of taking action on the complaint of the petitioners, respondents 2 and 3, who are having close acquaintance with respondents 4 and 5, started threatening petitioners to hand over possession of the land to respondents 4 and 5, failing which theywould be implicated in false criminal cases. In the circumstances, though the petitioners made a representation before the 1st respondent/Superintendent of Police, there was no response. The petitioners also submitted an application before the District Legal Cell vide TLC No.203 of 2006, which was referred to Lok Adalat and an Award was passed on 3.07.2007 in which the petitioners and respondents 4 and 5 have agreed for survey of the land. The petitioners also ﬁled O.S.No.6 of 2003 on the ﬁle of the Court of Senior CivilJudge, Medak District at Sangareddy for declaration of their title and perpetual injunction and also for rectiﬁcation of wrong entries in revenue records. Pending the suit, by order dated 24.01.2008 in I.A.No.38 of 2008, defendants 1 to 5 in the suit were directed not to alienate the suit schedule property. In spite of the same, respondents 2 and 3 at the instance of respondents 4 and 5 have been summoning the petitioners to police station and detaining them in the police station for hours together and thereby pressurizing them to hand over possession of the land to respondents 4 and 5. Hence, the present writ petition seeking a declaration that the action of respondents 2 and 3 is arbitrary and illegal. This Court while directing notice before admission by order dated 31.01.2008 ordered that respondents 2 and 3 shall not interfere with civil disputes between the petitioners and respondents 4 and 5 which are subject matter of O.S.No.6 of 2008. However, it was made clear that in the event of any law and order problem or in case any complaint is ﬁled, it is open to the respondents 2 and 3 to take steps in accordance with law. The 3rd respondent ﬁled a counter aﬃdavit stating that after ﬁling writ petition, the 4th respondent lodged a complaint dated 6.02.2008 alleging that the petitioners illegally trespassed into the land of complainant on 5.02.2008 and caused damage to the crop. Basing on the said complaint, Crime No.19 of 2008 was registered on 6.02.2008 for oﬀences under Section 447 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code and investigation is still pending. Except registration of the said crime, which is in accordance with law, respondent No.3 never interfered with civil disputes of the petitioners. All other allegations made by the petitioners are specifically denied. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material on record. The learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that Crime No.19/2008 was registered against the petitioners herein taking advantage of the liberty granted by this Court in the order dated 31.01.2008 to get over the plea of the petitioners that respondents 2 and 3 herein are interfering with civil disputes between the petitioners and respondents 4 and 5. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader contended that Crime No.19/2008 was registered in accordance with law basing on the complaint lodged by respondents 4 and 5 herein. The respondents 4 and 5 also ﬁled a separate counter aﬃdavit disputing petitioners plea that respondents 4 and 5 are parties to O.S.No.6 of 2008 pending on the ﬁle of the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Sangareddy. It is contended that respondents 4 and 5 have nothing to do with Ac.2.20 gts of land situated in Sy.No.507 and the alleged trespass into the said land by respondents 4 and 5 is absolutely false and without any basis. It is further claimed that respondents 4 and 5 had purchased a piece of land in R.S.No.569 of Pati Ghanapur village, Patancheru Mandal, Medak District under two registered sale deeds long ago and they are continuing in possession of the same. It is also pleaded that the description of the 4th respondent in the cause title of writ petition itself is wrong and the entire writ petition is misconceived and liable to be dismissed in limini. The learned counsel appearing for respondents 4 and 5 placed before this Court a copy of the order dated 24.01.2008 in I.a.No.38 of 2008 in O.S.No.6 of 2008 on the ﬁle of the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Sangareddy, which shows that petitioners 1, 2, 3 and along with one Paryada Nagamma against ﬁve defendants viz., Dandugula Anthaiah; Dandugula Ramulul; Garela Venkataiah; Garela Yadaiah and Garela Vinod. The suit property was described as Ac.2.20 gts of land situated in Sy.No.570 of Pati Ghanpur village, Patancheru Mandal. A Xerox copy of the said order was placed before this Court. The above order supports the version of respondents 4 and 5 that they are not parties to O.S.No.6 of 2008 relating to Ac.2.20 gts of land situated in Sy.No.570 in respect of which the writ petitioners are claiming title and possession. Except placing before this Court a photo copy of the order in I.A.No.38 of 2008 in O.S.No.6 of 2008, which shows altogether ﬁve defendants including respondents 4 and 5 herein, no other material could be placed to substantiate their plea that respondents 4 and 5 herein are also parties to O.S.No.6 of 2008. It is also relevant to note that in their counter aﬃdavit, respondents 4 and 5 made it clear that they have nothing to do with the subject matter of OS.No.6 of 2008 i.e., Ac.2.20 gts of land situated in Sy.No.570 and pleaded that they are the owners and possessors of the land situated in Sy.No.569. Thus, on the besis of the material made available before this court, prima facie it appears that the plea of the petitioners that civil disputes are pending between them and respondents 4 and 5 is incorrect. Be that as it may, respondent No.3 in his counter aﬃdavit categorically denied all the allegations made by the petitioners that respondents 2 and 3 are summoning the petitioners to police station and harassing them. No aﬃdavit in reply is ﬁled by the petitioners to contradict the said version of the third respondent and no other material is placed before this Court to disbelieve the statement of the 3rd respondent. As already expressed above, the claim of the petitioners in respect of the land situated in Sy.No.570 is the subject matter of O.S.No.6 of 2008 and it is for the civil Court to decide the rival claims if any. It is also clear from the counter aﬃdavit that the complaint lodged by the 4th respondent against the petitioners herein was with regard to illegal trespassing into the land situated in Sy.No.569 in respect of which they are claiming title and possession. Basing on the same, Crime No.19 of 2008 has been registered which is in accordance with the liberty granted by this Court. Hence, the action of respondents 3 and 4 cannot be held to be illegal even on the ground of registration of the said crime. As observed above, since no prima facie case is made out to show that civil disputes are pending between the petitioners and respondents 4 and 5 and having regard to the categorical assertion made by the 3rd respondent in his counter aﬃdavit, no further enquiry is necessary in the writ petition. Accordingly, recording the statement of respondent No.3 made in the counter aﬃdavit that he is not interfering with civil disputes of the petitioners at any point of time, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondents 1 to 3 not to interfere with personal liberty of the petitioner in any manner whatsoever without following due process of law. No costs. 16.09.2008. Kgr IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.1579 of 2008 Between: 1 Paryada Vadde Rajaiah, s/o Hanumaiah, resident of Pati Ganapur Village, Patancheru Mandal, Medak District. 2 Paryada Vadde Narasimhulu, s/o Hanumaiah, resident of Pati Ganapur Village, Patancheru Mandal, Medak District. 3 Paryada Vadde Narayana, s/o Hanumaiah, resident of Pati Ganapur Village, Patancheru Mandal, Medak District. 4 Paryada Vadde Hari, s/o Narasimhulu, resident of Pati Ganapur Village, Patancheru Mandal, Medak District. 5 Paryada Vadde Gopal, S/o Rajaiah, resident of Pati Ganapur Village, Patancheru Mandal, Medak District. 6 Paryada Vadde Dasharath, s/o Rajaiah, resident of Pati Ganapur Village, Patancheru Mandal, Medak District. 7 Paryada Vadde Mallesh, s/o Narayana, resident of Pati Ganapur Village, Patancheru Mandal, Medak District. 8 Paryada Vadde Ashok, S/o Narayana, resident of Pati Ganapur Village, Patancheru Mandal, Medak District. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Superintendent of Police, Medak District, at Sangareddy. 2 The Circle Inspector of Police, Patancheru Town and Mandal, Medak District. 3 The Station House Officer, BDL Bhanoor P.S., medak District. 4 B.Seetharama Reddy, s/o lave Venkata Ramaiah, r/o Flat No.107, Garuda Sesha Sai Apartment, Tarnaka, Secunderabad. 5 Ch.Narsi Reddy, s/o Lakshma Reddy, R/o Plot No.68, Mega Hills, madhapur, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS 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 issue writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus, declaring the action of the respondent Nos.2 and 3 in summoning the petitioners to the police station and threatening to compromise the suit O.S.No.6/2008 on the ﬁle of Senior Civil Judge, Sanga Reddy and thereby causing their interferences in civil disputes as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and consequently direct the respondents not to interfere with the civil disputes in any manner and to grant such other relief or reliefs as t h i s Hon'ble Court deems ﬁt and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. VENKATESWARLU SANISETTY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following: