IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE NINETH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 7261 of 2008 Between: 1 K. Rajani W/o.Yadagiri R/o. H.No. 2-56/D/213/3-A, Khanamet, Serlingampalli, Ranga Reddy District. 2 Sampangi Sivamma W/o. V.C. Swamy R/o. H.No. 2-56/D/213/11-A, Khanamet, Serlingampalli Ranga Reddy District. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Director General of Police, Saifabad, Hyderabad. 2 The Commissioner of Police, Cyberabad, Gachibowli, Hyderabad. 3 The Circle Inspector of Police, Madhapur Police Station, Hyderabad. 4 Patel Prameela Rani W/o. Patel Jagatraj R/o.H.No. 12-11-1451, Boudha Nagar, Warasi Guda, Secunderabad. 5 Mr. Mohammad Wasi Siddiqui S/o. Sufi Mohammad Akbar Siddiqi R/o.D.No. 10-4-771/643/1, Masab Tank, Humayun Nagar , Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.V.R.REDDY KOVVURI Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 to 3: GP FOR HOME Counsel for Respondent Nos.4 and 5: DR.MUDDU VIJAY The Court made the following : ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed for a writ of Mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.3 in interfering with the rights of the petitioners over land admeasuring 700 square yards comprised in Survey Nos.11/23, 11/25 and 11/27 at Khanamet, Serlingampalli, Rajendranagar Taluk, Ranga Reddy District, as arbitrary, illegal and unconstitutional. The petitioners sought for a direction to respondent No.3 not to interfere with their rights over the said extent of land. In their affidavit, the petitioners stated that the above-mentioned extent of land originally belonged to Gurukul Ghatkesar Trust; that the said Trust gifted the said land to one Limba Naik, Son of Lakshman Naik, through an unregistered gift settlement deed dated 08-06-1982, which was later on validated by the District Registrar and Collector, Ranga Reddy District and; that the said Limba Naik sold the said land in favour of the petitioners through an unregistered sale deed dated 27-08-1992, which was also later validated by the District Registrar and Collector, Ranga Reddy District. The petitioners further averred that since the date of purchase of the said land, they are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same, without interference from any corner, by erecting sheds with asbestos sheet roof; that the said sheds were assigned door numbers; that when the petitioners started making permanent constructions by raising foundation and concrete pillars, respondent Nos.4 and 5, who have no semblance of right over the said property, raised objections to the petitioners’ enjoyment of the same and; that respondent No.3, at the instance of respondent Nos.4 and 5, came to the said land on 14-03-2008, and asked the petitioners to stop the construction and hand over the site to respondent Nos.4 and 5, by threatening them with dire consequences, if the said demand was not complied with. The petitioners, therefore, filed this Writ Petition questioning the illegal interference of respondent No.3. Heard the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home for respondent Nos.1 to 3, and Dr.Muddu Vijay, learned Counsel for respondent Nos.4 and 5. The learned Assistant Government Pleader, on instructions, stated that on the complaint given by one Ramulu, who is the vendee from respondent No.5, respondent No.3 registered Crime No.210 of 2008 against the husbands of the petitioners herein and that investigation is in progress. She further stated that respondent No.3 has neither interfered with the alleged possession of the petitioners over the disputed land nor is he interfering in the civil dispute between the petitioners and respondent Nos.4 and 5. Dr.Muddu Vijay, learned Counsel for respondent Nos.4 and 5, stated that respondent No.5 purchased the above-mentioned property from respondent No.4, and he, in turn, sold the same to one Ramulu, and that with the sale of the property, they have no interest therein, and the allegation of the petitioners that, at their instance, respondent No.3 has been interfering with the civil dispute, is incorrect. In view of the fact that a Criminal case was registered against the husbands of the petitioners, which fact is not denied by the learned Counsel for the petitioners, respondent No.3 is entitled to investigate into the said Crime. But at the same time, respondent No.3 shall not interfere in the civil dispute, regarding the above-mentioned property, in the guise of investigation. If the petitioners have any grievance against registration of Crime No.210 of 2008, they shall be free to avail appropriate remedies in that regard. Subject to the above observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, WPMP.No.9551 of 2008 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. ______________________ (C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J) 9th April, 2008 Note: Furnish CC as early as possible. B/o lur