THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH Dated this the 7th day of October 2009. Writ Petition No. 15172 of 2009. Between: Y.V.S.Chalapathi Rao. ………Petitioner vs. 1. The State of A.P. rep by its Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and 5 others. ……Respondents. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH Writ Petition No. 15172 of 2009. ORAL ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking to issue an order or writ more particularly a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents 3 and 4 in interfering with civil dispute in respect of land ad measuring 300 sq. yards (Plot No. 245) in S.No. 20/12 situated at Katedan village, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District is illegal and arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents 3 and 4 not to interfere in civil dispute in respect of the land referred to above. The case of the petitioner is that one Y.V.S.Chalapathi Rao purchased land to an extent of 300 sq. yards in S.No. 21/12 situated at Katedan village, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District through a registered sale deed dt. 3.3.1992 from one E.Sampath Kumar represented by his GPA holder Ratilal (Respondent No.5 herein) vide Registered Document No. 3189 of 1992 and that on 13.3.2007 the said Y.V.S.Chalapathi Rao executed a registered agreement of sale-cum-General Power of Attorney in his favour vide Document No. 4129 of 2007 and vacant possession of the land was delivered to him on the same day and that thereafter he got constructed two rooms in the said plot and appointed a watchman to take care of it. Further case of the petitioner is that the vendor of Y.V.S.Chalapathi Rao by name E.Sampath Kumar is having land to an extent of Ac. 3.33 gts in the very same area and he executed G.P.A. in favour of respondent No.5 for the entire land by making the land into plots and that Respondent No.5 sold the plots to various third parties. In the month of May 2007 when he started constructing compound wall, the respondent No.7 along with unsocial elements tried to interfere with his possession over the plot and he could be able to resist their interference with great difficulty and then he lodged a complaint on 8.5.2007 with the Respondent No.3 (Asst. Commissioner of Police, Rajendranagar) but the police did not take any action against the culprits and advised them to approach a competent civil court since the dispute is civil in nature. Then they filed O.S.No. 1896 of 2007 against the respondent No.7 and others seeking perpetual injunction before the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy along with an I.A.No. 1684 of 2007 and obtained status quo orders on 14.8.2007. Further case of the petitioner is that the Respondent No.7 colluded with the Respondents 5 and 6 and hatched a plan to grab the land of the petitioner and in pursuance of their plan, they came on to the plot on 7.3.2009 and threatened their watchman to vacate the plot and subsequently, they came to know that the respondents 5 and 6 have created false documents in respect of their plot and claiming ownership and then, he approached the Respondent No.4 and lodged a complaint on 8.3.2009 against the respondents 5 to 7. Again on 12.3.2009, the respondents 5 and 6 along with their family members came to the plot and threatened their watchman to leave the plot and that though their watchman also made a complaint to the police, they did not take any action on their complaints. It is further stated that the respondent No.5 lodged a complaint on 8.3.2009 before the respondent No.4 alleging that some unknown persons attacked their watchman who was employed to take care of the very same plot. Since the police did not take any action on their repeated complaints, the petitioner filed a private complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. before the VIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Rajendrangar who referred the complaint to the police for investigation and report vide CC.Sr.No. 1784 of 2009. The grievance of the petitioner is that the C.I. of Police, Rajendranagar Sri.Ram Bhoopal (Respondent No.4) is harassing him in one way or the other and threatening him to leave the plot and that on 18.3.2009, the CI of police, Rajendranagar at the instance of 3rd respondent threatened him with dire consequences and asked him to vacate the plot and though he tried to explain about the things by showing all the documents, he did not hear him and thereafter also the CI of police, Rajendranagar threatened him with dire consequences on several occasions. In the circumstances, the petitioner filed the present writ petition questioning the action of the respondents 3 and 4 in interfering with civil dispute in respect of the plot in question. The respondent No.4 filed a counter affidavit stating that the petitioner filed a private complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. before the VIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Rajendranagar against the unofficial respondents alleging that on 7.3.2009, the persons named in the complaint criminally trespassed into the plot of the petitioner and threatened the watchman with dire consequences and forcibly tried to occupy the plot and that the said complaint was forwarded to the police and basing on the complaint, a case in Cr.No. 468 of 2009 under Sections 420, 448, 468, 506 r/w 34 IPC was registered and the respondents 5 and 6 herein are shown as A.1 and A.9. It is further stated in the counter that pursuant to the registration of crime, a letter was addressed to the Sub-Registrar Office, Rajendranagar to furnish the particulars of the plot in question and that no prima facie case is yet established against any of the accused. It is further stated that the petitioner is having a civil dispute in S.No. 20/12 with Agarwals and they obtained status quo orders against the 6th respondent in O.S.No. 1894 of 2007 and the investigation in respect of the said crime is pending. It is further stated that one Shyam Sunder Agarwal lodged a complaint on 8.3.3009 alleging that on 7.3.2009 at about 20.30 hours, some unsocial elements from Kadapa District trespassed into his plot No.4 in S.No. 20 of Katedan village and threatened his watchman Mr.Ahmed and abused him in filthy language and tried to send him away from the plot and that basing on the complaint, a case in Cr.No. 234 of 2009 under Sections 447, 506 and 323 IPC was registered and both the crimes are under investigation. The other allegations of the petitioners that he went to the plot in question and threatened him with dire consequences and asked him to leave the plot etc., are denied. The grievance of the petitioners is that as a civil dispute arose in respect of land to an extent of 300 sq. yards in S.No. 20/12 situated at Katedan village, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District with the unofficial respondents, he instituted a suit in O.S.No. 1896 of 2007 and obtained status quo orders. Further grievance of the petitioner is that the respondent No.7 colluding with respondents 5 and 6 are trying to grab the plot which was already under sub judis and that though complaints were lodged with the police, no action is being taken and on the other than, the respondent No.4, who is the Station House Officer of Rajendrangar P.S. at the instance of the respondents 3, 5 to 7 is interfering with the civil dispute in respect of the plot in question and threatening him to vacate the plot. On the other hand, the assertion of the 4th respondent is that on a private complaint being referred to the police, a case in Cr.No. 468 of 2009 under Sections 420, 448, 468 and 506 r/w 34 IPC was registered against the respondents 5 and 6 and others and the case is under investigation and as no prima facie case is established against the accused, no action is yet taken. It is further asserted that another Cr.No. 234 of 2009 under Sections 447, 506 and 323 IPC was registered against some unsocial elements for the alleged interference in Plot No.4 in S.No. 20 of Katedan village and said crime is also still pending and as when the investigation in both the crimes are completed, necessary action will be taken in accordance with law. Since a civil dispute in respect of land to an extent of 300 sq. yards in S.No. 20/12, Katedan village is already pending in O.S.No. 1896 of 2007 and the competent Civil Court already granted status quo orders in respect of the said plot, the respondents particularly the respondent No.4 cannot interfere with civil dispute. So also, the respondent No.4 under the guise of investigation in Cr.No. 468 of 2009 registered against the respondents 5 and 6 and others, cannot enter upon the plot in question and harass the petitioner. The bounden duty of the respondents particularly the respondent No. 4 is only to investigate the Cr.No. 468 of 2009 and other crime and proceed in accordance with law. With the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. __________________ G.CHANDRAIAH,J 7.10.2009. krb. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH Writ Petition No. 15172 of 2009. Dated this the 7th day of October 2009.