THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.13587 of 2008 Date:28.06.2011 Between: Sri Venkata Sai Plot Owners Welfare Association, Hyderabad ..... Petitioner AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Principal Secretary, Hyderabad and others .....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri K.S.Murthy Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 to 4: Assistant Government Pleader for Home Counsel for Respondent Nos.5 to 8: Sri K.Gani Reddy The Court made the following: ORDER: At the interlocutory stage, the writ petition itself is taken up for hearing and disposal with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. The short and simple grievance of the petitioner in this writ petition is that while purporting to transfer crime No.28 of 2008 registered on the report of the petitioner for offences punishable under Sections 447, 427 and 506 I.P.C. against respondent Nos.5 to 8, respondent No.2 has given findings on the location of the survey Nos.297, 81/2 and 295, over which there are serious civil disputes pending between the petitioner on one side and respondent Nos.5 to 8 on the other. At the hearing, Sri K.S.Murthy, learned counsel for the petitioner, while fairly conceding that the transfer of the crime from respondent No.2 police station to Dundigal police station under Cyberabad Commissionerate, may not by itself cause prejudice to the interests of the petitioner, he apprehends that the findings given by respondent No.2 in the impugned notice on the basis of a purported survey conducted behind the back of the petitioner may adversely affect the interests of the petitioner in the pending civil proceedings and also on the investigation into the crime. I find some merit in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. In ordinary course, when a survey was sought to be conducted as a part of investigation, respondent No.2 ought to have put the petitioner and respondent Nos.5 to 8 on notice and no conclusions can be drawn on the basis of a survey which was conducted behind the back of the petitioner. However, even if for the limited purpose of transfer of pending criminal case to another police station the said survey report may have been used by respondent No.2, such a survey report and the conclusions drawn by respondent No.2 in the impugned notice dated 01.06.2008 cannot be allowed to form basis either for adjudication in the pending civil proceedings or for investigation by Dundigal police station to which the crime is transferred. The parties shall be free to adduce appropriate evidence in support of their respective pleas regarding the location of the disputed survey numbers before any fora including the civil Court notwithstanding the impugned notice dated 01.06.2008. Subject to the above observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, interim order dated 02.07.2008 in W.P.M.P.No.17531 of 2008 is vacated, W.P.M.P.Nos.17530, 17531 and 18238 of 2008, 10437 of 2011 and W.V.M.P.No.2226 of 2008 are disposed of as infructuous. ________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 28th June, 2011 GHN