IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION NO :16757 of 2009 Between: Kolavali Ratnamma and ten others ..... PETITIONERs AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Superintendent of Police, Kadapa And four others .....RESPONDENT(S) THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH W.P.No.16757 of 2009 O R D E R: This writ petition is filed seeking to issue a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of respondent No.2 in interfering with the petitioners rights over the houses bearing D.Nos.7/14/4A to 4F, 7/93, 7/94, 7/95 & 7/89, Sivalayam Street, Badvel town, Kadapa District, at the instance of the respondent Nos.3 to 5, as arbitrary, illegal, highhanded and violative of fundamental and constitutional rights guaranteed to the petitioners under Articles 14, 19, 21 & 300A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the 2nd respondent not to interfere with the petitioners’ rights over the said houses and to pass such other orders. 2. It is the case of the petitioners that the land in an extent of Ac.2.50 cents in Sy.No.857/2B of Madakalavaripalli village, Badvel town, originally belongs to one K.Pothuluraiah, who sold the same in favour of respondent Nos.3 to 5. K.Pothuluraiah, who had also possessed the land to the west of the land in Sy.No.857/2B of Madakalavaripalli village, plotted the said land and sold to several individuals, including the petitioners, as house sites. The petitioners constructed eleven houses bearing D.Nos.7/14/4A to 4F, 7/93, 7/94, 7/95 and 7/89 situated at Radhakrishna Nagar, Sivalayam Street, Badvel town, (hereinafter referred to as the ‘subject houses’) in the house sites purchased by them, situated to the west of the land in an extent of Ac.2.50 cents in Sy.No.857/2B of Madakalavaripalle village, purchased by respondent Nos.3 to 5, and they are residing in the subject houses by paying the taxes regularly to the Badvel Municipality. While so, respondent Nos.3 to 5 filed a suit in O.S.No.21 of 2000 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Badvel for declaration of title and mandatory injunction for eviction from the subject houses. The said suit was contested by the petitioners and the same is reserved for judgment dated 17.2.2009 and the judgment is yet to be pronounced. Respondent Nos.3 to 5, who seems to have come to the conclusion that they would not succeed in their suit, approached the 2nd respondent/Circle Inspector of Police, Badvel, and with the support of the 2nd respondent came to the subject houses along with rowdy elements on 08.08.2009 and demolished two houses. Therefore, the petitioners have submitted a representation, dated 10.8.2009 to the 1st respondent/Superintendent of Police, Kadapa District, bring to his notice the highhanded action of the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent, having come to know about the submission of the representation by the petitioners to the 1st respondent, became more violent against the petitioners and came to the subject houses on 11.8.2009 along with respondent Nos.3 to 5 and intimidated them with dire consequences if the subject houses are not vacated and handed over to the respondent Nos.3 to 5 on or before 13.8.2009. The 2nd respondent also further suggested that respondent Nos.3 to 5 would pay compensation to the petitioners, if the subject houses are vacated and handed over to respondents 3 to 5. It is the grievance of the petitioners that the 2nd respondent is no way concerned to determine the rights of the individuals with regard to landed properties and, therefore the action of the respondents in interfering with their rights of the petitioners over the subject houses at the instance of respondent Nos.3 to 5 is illegal and arbitrary. 3. The learned Government Pleader for Home, basing on the instructions of the Station House Officer, Badvel Police Station, Kadapa District vide letter dated 20.8.2009, submitted that the 2nd respondent never interfered with the petitioners right, at any point of time, in respect of their houses bearing D.Nos.7/14/4A to 4F, 7/93, 7/94, 7/95 and 7/89 situated at Sivalayam Street, Badvel town, Kadapa District. It is also submitted that respondent No.2 did not went to the houses of the petitioners on 8.8.2009 and 11.8.2009 or on any other date or supported the respondent Nos.3 to 5 in demolition of their houses at any point of time and the contents of the representation submitted to the Superintendent of Police, Kadapa dated 10.8.2009 are incorrect. 4. A counter-affidavit has been filed by the 3rd respondent, wherein the allegations made by the petitioners have been denied and it is stated that O.S.No.21 of 2009 has been filed by respondent Nos.3 to 5 against the petitioners and the matter is reserved for judgment on 17.2.2009. It is also stated that 5th respondent expired long back. 5. The case of the petitioner is that the 2nd respondent, who is the Circle Inspector of Police, Badvel, Kadapa District, is interfering with the petitioners’ rights over the subject houses at the instance of respondent Nos.3 to 5. According to the learned Government Pleader for Home, the 2nd respondent never interfered with the right of the petitioners’ over the subject houses and he has not visited the subject houses at all, as alleged by the petitioners. It is the case of respondent Nos.3 to 5 that in the land belonging to them, the petitioners made constructions and therefore they were forced to file civil suit in O.S.No.21 of 2000, which is reserved for judgment. 6. In view of the fact that there are civil disputes pending between the parties and the suit O.S.No.21 of 2000, filed by respondents 3 to 5 before the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Badvel, is reserved for judgment, and having regard to the submission of the learned Government Pleader that the 2nd respondent never interfered with the petitioners’ possession over the subject houses, this Court does not find any merits in this case to grant any direction in favour of the petitioners. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. ________________ G.CHANDRAIAH,J 8th October, 2009 PNV