IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 11768 of 2009 Between: 1 Maram Satyamareddy S/o.Siddareddy R/o. Laxmipuram (V) Burgampahad Mandal, Khammam District. 2 Maram Venkatareddy S/o.Siddareddy R/o. Laxmipuram (V) Burgampahad Mandal, Khammam District. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Superintendent of Police, Khammam, Khammam District. 2 Station House Officer, Burgampad P.S. Burgampad, Khammam 3 Avula Achamma W/o.Guravareddy R/o.Laxmipuram (V) Burgampahad Mandal, Khammam District. 4 Avula Guravareddy S/o.Nagireddy R/o.Laxmipuram Burgampahad Mandal, Khammam District. ..RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.R.KAMESWARA RAO Counsel for respondents 1 and 2: AGP FOR HOME The Court made the following : O R D E R: This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of the police in harassing the petitioners as illegal. In the view I am proposing to take, there is no need to issue notices to respondents 3 and 4. A perusal of the record shows that there is a dispute over Acs.3.00 of land in Survey No.419 of Laxmipuram Village, Burgampad Mandal, Khammam District between the petitioners and respondents 3 and 4. O.S.No.706 of 2006 was filed by respondents 3 and 4 in the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kothagudem. The ex parte injunction granted in the said suit was subsequently vacated on 14-12-2006 at the instance of the petitioners. The petitioners claim that Tahsildar addressed letter dated 28-06-2007 to respondent No.2 to provide police protection to the petitioners in view of the Court orders. Subsequently, in CMA No.4 of 2007 filed before the Principal Senior Civil Judge by respondents 3 and 4, the injunction order was modified into one of status quo. In paragraph 8 of the affidavit, the petitioners made the following allegations against respondent No.2. “It is submitted that the Sub-Inspector of Police, Burgampad P.S., transferred and the new incumbent came about one month back. A Constable came to our house and informed that the Sub-Inspector asked me to come and meet him in respect of the said land dispute. This happened on 5.6.2009. On the next day, I went to the police station and met the Sub-Inspector. I have shown the document of purchase and also the Court order and also told the suits are pending before the Court. The Sub- Inspector gone through the papers and told we shall not enter into and cultivate the land. The Civil Court orders are binding on the respondents. The agriculture season has commenced. On enquiry, it came to know that the Sub- Inspector acting under the influence of the local political leaders at the instance of the respondents 3 and 4. In view of the facts and circumstances the present writ petition is filed before this Hon’ble Court against the illegal actions of the police.” In response to the notice issued by this Court, J.Narasimha Reddy, Sub-Inspector of Police, Burgampahad Police Station, Khammam District, who is respondent No.2, filed a counter-affidavit. He stated that though the Tahsildar addressed a letter on 28-06-2007 asking him to provide police protection, the said request was not renewed by him and that as of now, neither the petitioners nor the private respondents approached him with any petition for protection. He further assured that the police are always ready and willing to provide police protection if this Court directs them. The tenor of the counter-affidavit suggests that respondent No.2 has not taken minimal care to advert to the specific allegations made by the petitioners against him. He failed to deny the allegation that he sent a Constable to the house of petitioner No.1 and summoned him to the police station and that when petitioner No.1 went to the police station and showed the documents pertaining to the land, he told petitioner No.1 not to enter and cultivate the land. The failure of respondent No.2 to deny the specific allegation gives rise to a legitimate presumption that the allegations made by the petitioners against respondent No.2 are correct and the latter unduly interfered with the civil disputes between the petitioners and respondents 3 and 4. Respondent No.1 is, therefore, directed to initiate appropriate action against respondent No.2 for acting beyond his official function. Respondent No.2 is further restrained from interfering in the civil disputes between the petitioners and respondents 3 and 4. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 25th June, 2009 vrn