THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO. 12162 OF 2010 Dated 1st June, 2010 Between: Srinivasa Housing Welfare Society …Petitioner And The Station House Officer …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Sri Ch.Anjaneyulu Counsel for the respondents: G.P for Home The Court made the following ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of the respondent in not protecting the petitioner’s members’ rights over plots in Survey No.233/22 over an extent of Acs.2.01 cents in Nizampet Village, Quthbullapur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District from the antisocial elements as illegal and arbitrary. I have heard Sri Ch.Anjaneyulu, learned counsel for the petitioner, and perused the record. The petitioner is a Society, which claims that its members were granted house site pattas by the Government after regularising their possession. The members of the petitioner Society are stated to have approached the Deputy Collector and Tahsildar, Quthbullapur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District with a representation dated 22.05.2010 and that on the same day, the Deputy Collector and Tahsildar issued letter dated 22.05.2010 addressed to the respondent to take necessary action for protecting the plot owners’ rights. The present writ petition is filed by the petitioner with the grievance that despite the said letter, the respondent has not taken any action. At the hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner is unable to point out any provision of law, under which the Deputy Collector and Tahsildar is empowered to address a letter as he did asking the respondent to protect the petitioner’s rights over the plots given to its members by the State. If the civil rights of the members of the petitioner Society are sought to be defeated by third parties, they are entitled to invoke common law remedies before the common law Courts seeking appropriate orders. If the acts of third parties constitute commission of offences, the members of the petitioner Society are entitled to set the criminal law procedure in motion by giving appropriate reports before the police. They have not availed either of these two remedies. Instead they approached the Deputy Collector and Tahsildar, who is stated to have addressed the abovementioned letter to the respondent. The Supreme Court in P.R.Muralidharan vs. Swamy Dharmananda Theerth Padar[1], while disapproving filing of writ petitions of this nature, held as under- “It would be an abuse of process for a writ petitioner to approach the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of Mandamus directing the police authorities to protect his claimed possession of a property without first establishing his possession in an appropriate civil Court. The temptation to grant relief in cases of this nature should be resisted by the High Court. The wide jurisdiction under Article 226 would remain effective and meaningful only when it is exercised prudently and in appropriate cases” In my considered opinion, the petitioner or its members ought to have availed either or both of the abovementioned two remedies before approaching this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. For the abovementioned reasons, I do not find any merit in this writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of main petition, WPMP No.15328 of 2010 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 1st June, 2010 vrn [1] (2006) 4 SCC 501