THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION No.23521 of 2010 ORDER: Petitioner claims to have succeeded to the subject land admeasuring Acs.2.14 cents in R.S.No.38 of Marlagudem Village, Buttaigudem Mandal, West Godavari District, which was said to have been purchased by his grandfather by name Singuluri Somanna, in the year 1956, vide registered document dated 18.07.1956. He states that it has been common practice for the tribal people in the agency area of West Godavari District to trespass into the lands of non-tribal people, and considering such instances, the Special Assistant Agent to Government/ Revenue Divisional Officer, Jangareddygudem, issued circular dated 03.07.2002 directing all the Station House Officers in the Jangareddygudem Revenue Division, to consult the Mandal Revenue Officer concerned, while dealing with complaints received as regards such land disputes between the tribals and non-tribals. While so, the petitioner states, as the 4th respondent herein, who is the leader of the tribes, and his followers started interfering with his possession of the subject land and are causing obstruction to his cultivation of the same, he made an application to the 3rd respondent- Tahsildar, Buttaigudem Mandal, on 06.09.2010, against the 4th respondent and his followers, and requested to direct the 2nd respondent- Station House Officer, Buttaigudem Police Station, to provide necessary protection against the obstruction to his cultivation of the subject land. It is the grievance of the petitioner that till date the 3rd respondent has not acted upon his application and has not issued any directions to the 2nd respondent to prevent interference by providing necessary protection, in the absence of which the 2nd respondent is unable to take any action in the matter independently in view of the circular instructions dated 03.07.2002 issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer referred above, and as a result he is unable to cultivate his land. Hence, he filed the present writ petition seeking appropriate directions. The 2nd respondent- Station House Officer, Buttaigudem Police Station, alone filed counter-affidavit, stating that there are no directions to him from the 3rd respondent in the matter. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, in similar circumstances, on some of the similarly placed land owners submitting applications complaining about the illegal interference with their possession of the lands held by them, by the tribal people, the 3rd respondent issued directions to the Station House Officers concerned to provide necessary protection to those land owners against the obstruction being caused to their cultivation of the lands, by tribals, but in respect of the petitioner’s land, the 3rd respondent, for the reasons best known to him, did not issue such directions to the 2nd respondent. He further submits that when the Station House Officer concerned did not provide protection, in spite of the directions of the Tahsildar, those land owners have filed writ petitions before this Court and obtained interim directions to the respondents therein to act upon the letters addressed by the Tahsildar to the Station House Officer and provide necessary protection to them against obstruction to their cultivation of their respective lands. Learned counsel has taken this Court to the interim orders passed to that effect in one such writ petition being W.P.No.21720 of 2010, dated 06.09.2010, a copy of which is filed in the material papers of the writ petition. From the above, it is clear that in some of the cases there are directions by the Tahsildar to the Station House Officer concerned to provide necessary protection to the land owners against obstruction being caused by the tribal people to their cultivation of the lands held by them and also directions by this Court to implement the said orders of the Tahsildar. But, in the instant case, no such directions are issued by the 3rd respondent and the application dated 06.09.2010 submitted by the petitioner, seeking the said relief, is still pending before the 3rd respondent. In the circumstances, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition as under: “The 3rd respondent is directed to consider the application dated 06.09.2010 of the petitioner and, if really there is necessity to provide police protection to the petitioner against the alleged obstruction to his cultivation of the subject land by the tribals, he shall issue necessary directions to the 2nd respondent in that regard, and on such directions being issued, the 2nd respondent shall follow the same, without fail.” With the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. __________________ JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA 6th October, 2010 IBL