IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 4862 of 2008 Between: G.Kantha Reddy S/o.Narasimha Reddy, R/o.Dinnedevarapadu(V) Kurnool, Kurnool Dist ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Surperintendent of Police Kurnool,Kurnool Dist 2 The Station House Officer/Circle Inspector Kurnool Taluq Police Station Kurnool Dist 3 The Sub-Indpector of Police Kurnool Taluq Police Station Kurnool Dist .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.I.C.SAMUEL Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following : Order: This Writ Petition is filed for a writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner’s land admeasuring Ac.2.00 comprised in Survey No.306 at Dinnedevarapadu Village, Kurnool Revenue Mandal and District as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner also sought for a direction to the respondents not to remove the existing structures on the above land. Heard Sri I.C.Samuel, learned Counsel for the petitioner, and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home. In the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition, the petitioner alleged that while the petitioner was fencing the above mentioned land, respondent No.2 came to the said land on 01-03-2008 along with the staff and tried to remove the existing structures such as boundary stones etc., and that with the help of the elders and neighbours, the petitioner resisted the said attempt of respondent No.2. The petitioner alleged that respondent No.2 left the place by threatening that he will come back again. The petitioner stated that he gave a complaint to respondent No.3 against respondent No.2, but no action was taken thereon. The petitioner, therefore, filed the present Writ Petition seeking the abovementioned relief. No counter-affidavit has been filed by respondent No.2. Respondent No.3 filed a counter-affidavit, in which he denied interference by respondent No.2. He also denied receipt of any complaint from the petitioner. Though serious allegations are levelled against respondent No.2, for reasons best known to him, he chose not to file a counter-affidavit. In my considered opinion, while the allegations are made against respondent No.2, he is liable to reply to the same by filing his own affidavit. Respondent No.3 is not competent to deny the allegations made against respondent No.2. Therefore, it is reasonable to presume that respondent No.2 has unduly interfered with the petitioner’s property. Since the petitioner is stated to have filed a representation to respondent No.1 complaining against the undue interference by respondent No.2, respondent No.1 is directed to enquire into the same and initiate appropriate action against respondent No.2, if the contents of the complaint are found correct. The Writ Petition is accordingly, disposed of. Respondent No.2 is directed not to interfere with the petitioner’s enjoyment of the above mentioned property in future. As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, WPMP.No.6311 of 2008 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is also disposed of as infructuous. _____________________ (C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J) 14-03-2008 LUR