IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No: 948 of 2001 Between: 1. Smt. D. Jhansi Prakash W/o. D. Jayaprakash, D/o. Late Tellam Sunder Rao R/o. Bhadrachalam now residing at A-5, Indian Airlines Colony, Opp: Begumpet Police Station, Prakashnagar, Secunderabad-3. Since died per her legal representatives - petitioners 2 to 4. 2. Dara Jai Prakash S/o. D. Babulal, Airport Manager, Indian Airlines, Begumpet, R/o. A-5, Indian Airlines Colony, Paiga Compound, Opp: Begumpet Police Station, Prakashnagar, Secunderabad-3. 3. Dara Sruti, D/o. Jai Prakash Student, R/o. A-5, Indian Airlines Colony, Paiga Compound, Opp: Begumpet Police Station, Prakashnagar, Secunderabad-3. 4. Dara Sristi, D/o. Jai Prakash Student, R/o. A-5, Indian Airlines Colony, Paiga Compound Opp: Begumpet Police Station, Prakashnagar, Secunderabad-3. ... PETITIONER AND The Station House Officer, Bhadrachalam P.S., Bhadrachalam, Khammam District. ...RESPONDENT 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, one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondent herein in not providing police protection for erecting fencing around petitioner's land in spite of the letter dated 2.8.95 in Rc.No.C/976/94 of the Mandal Revenue Officer, Bhadrachalam and as well as the petitioner's representation dt. 27-12-2000 is illegal, arbitrary, malafide and much against to the settled principles of law and consequently direct the respondent herein to provide police protection for erecting fencing around the petitioner's land admeasuring 0-50 cents in O.S.No.20 corresponding to Re-Survey No.10/2 situated at Bhadrachalam town and Mandal, Khammam District and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.PALIVELASATYARAJA BABU Counsel for the Respondent: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following: ORDER: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the Learned Government Pleader for Home. 2. Petitioner submits that she was the original owner and purchaser of an extent of Ac.0.50 cents in old Sy.No.20 corresponding to new Sy.No.10/2 situated at Bhadrachalam Town and Mandal, Khammam District within the specified boundaries and since Ayyappaswami Temple committee members and others tried to occupy and raise structures, the petitioner filed LTR.Case.No.7/94/BCM before the Agency Divisional Officer, Bhadrachalam. The said Officer by order dated 10.06.1994 directed the Mandal Revenue Officer to hold possession of the said land as Receiver till the pendency of the case and the MRO took possession of the said land. After enquiry, the case was held in favour of the petitioner on 25.07.1994 restoring the possession in her favour under the cover of panchanama dated 03.08.1994. She further submits that an appeal filed against the said order to the Agent to the Government was dismissed on 06.01.1995, thus the said judgment has become final. During the pendency of the writ petition, the first petitioner died and her legal heirs were brought on record as petitioners 2 to 4. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the first petitioner was not allowed to raise fencing around her land and accordingly she submitted a representation before the Agency Divisional Officer, who passed the ejection orders, to provide necessary protection for erecting the fence. Accordingly, the Agency Divisional Officer directed the Mandal Revenue Officer to take appropriate steps for providing necessary police protection for erecting the fence and pursuant to the said order, the MRO vide his letter Rc.No.c/976/94 dated 02.08.1995 requested the Station House Officer, Bhadrachalam, to provide necessary police protection to the petitioner for erecting the fence around her land. The respondent has not taken any steps to provide protection in spite of another representation of the petitioner dated 27.12.2000 which was received by the respondent vide receipt No.130 dated 27.12.2000. 4. No counter is forthcoming from the respondent. I am of the opinion that there cannot be any justification on the part of the respondent in not providing police protection pursuant to the representation of the petitioner dated 27.12.2000, which was received vide Receipt No.130, dated 27.12.2000 and which was entered in the police station general diary on page 17 dated 27.12.2000. 5. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioners are permitted to make a fresh representation in continuation of the earlier representation. As and when such a representation is filed, the respondent shall provide necessary police protection to the petitioners for erecting the fence around the land of an extent of Ac.0.50 cents in old Sy.No.20 corresponding to new Sy.No.10/2 situated at Bhadrachalam Town and Mandal, Khammam District bounded on the East by R & B Quarters and site; West by the land of Pothakamudi Lakshmaiah; South by R & B site and North by the remaining land of S. Janardhan. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________ V. ESWARAIAH, J June 25, 2008 Note: Furnish C.C. of the order in three days. (B/o) DSK