IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY Writ Petition No.23032 of 2007 Dated: November 27, 2007 Between: Smt. Vani Vijaya Lakshmi, W/o. Sri Neelakanta Rao, aged about 53 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o.D.No.6-1-324, behind DSP Office, VDO’s Colony, Khammam, and others. … Petitioners And The Station House Officer, Khanapuram Police Station, Khammam District, and others. … Respondents Order: Petitioners, who claim to be holders of Occupancy Certificates with regard to land in Sy.No.55, situated at Damasalapuram, Khammam Urban, Khammam District, under the provisions of A.P. (Telangana Area) Inam Abolition Act, 1955 (‘the Act’ for brevity), filed this writ petition seeking Mandamus to direct the first respondent, Station House Officer, Khanapuram Police Station to provide Police assistance pursuant to their representation dated 26-09-2007. 2. Petitioners appear to have made representation dated 18-09- 2007 to the second respondent, Tahsildar, Khammam Urban, requesting him to survey and fix the boundaries of the land covered by Occupancy Certificates granted in their favour, i.e. Sy.No.55. It is stated that second respondent had fixed the survey on 27-09-2007 and apprehending interference of certain local antisocial elements with the survey, petitioners made representation dated 26-09-2007 to the first respondent to provide police protection. On the ground that no action has been taken on their representation, they approached this court. 3. Heard learned counsel for petitioners, learned Government Pleaders for Home and Revenue appearing for Respondents 1 and 2 respectively. 4. During the course of arguments, it is submitted by learned counsel for petitioners that survey did not take place on 27-09-2007, as scheduled, and no further date is also fixed to conduct survey. 5. Even according to learned counsel for petitioners, survey did not take place on the date fixed earlier and petitioners, either in their affidavit filed in support of the writ petition or in their representation submitted to the first respondent, have not named the persons from whom they are apprehending interference with the survey operations. 6. In the circumstances, I dispose of the writ petition with the following directions: i. Whenever a date is given by the second respondent for conducting fresh survey, petitioners may file an application before the first respondent, seeking his assistance, by naming the persons from whom they are apprehending interference with the survey operations. ii. If any such application is received by the first respondent, he shall take steps to provide Police assistance to the petitioners in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________________ JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY. November 27, 2007 MRR