IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No: 9548 of 2005 BETWEEN: Gadeela Bhoopathi Reddy, S/o. Late Uma Reddy, Siddipet Division, Medak District. ... PETITIONER AND 1 The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Siddipet Division, Medak District. 2 The Station House Officer, Siddipet (Rural) Police Station, Siddipet, Medak District. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue an order, direction or writ more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents in not taking any action on the representation dt.4-4-2005 seeking police aid and protection in respect of petitioner's life and property, as illegal, arbitrary, violative of Fundamental Rights enshrined under the Constitution of India, contrary to the Provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure and consequently direct the Respondents to investigate into the complaint dt.4.3.2005 lodged by me establishing a cognizable offence and file charges sheet accordingly. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.P.PURUSHOTHAM REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following: ORDER: None appears for the petitioner. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that he is the absolute owner and possessor of the various agricultural lands in Sy.Nos.350, 353 and 321/E of Chinnagundavalli Village, Siddipet Mandal, Medak District. While so, the suit filed by his late brother in O.S.No.11 of 1996 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Siddipet for partition of the suit schedule properties was dismissed by judgment and decree dated 28.03.2002. Thereafter the plaintiff in the said suit preferred as appeal in A.S.No.1230 of 2002 and the same is pending on the file of this Court. The petitioner made a complaint with regard to the illegal interference by the plaintiff and others in respect of his shop and sought for police protection for implementation of the judgment and decree in order to protect his person and properties from resulting in further loss vide request dated 04.04.2005 before the Station House Officer, Siddipet. As no action has been taken, the petitioner seeks a Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents 1 and 2 in not considering and disposing his representation as illegal and arbitrary. 3. Admittedly, no decree has been passed in favour of the petitioner. Merely because the suit for partition has been dismissed, it cannot be assumed and presumed that the petitioner is in possession of the said properties and that there is a decree in his favour. Therefore, in respect of the civil disputes the police cannot interfere unless the civil disputes are resolved by the appropriate civil Court. If there is any decree passed in favour of the petitioner then it is always open to the petitioner to seek police aid but in the absence of any decree, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is not entitled to any police aid for protection of his properties. Insofar as protection of his person is concerned, it is always open to the petitioner to make a representation with regard to the threat to his personal life and liberty and in which case, it is for the concerned police to take appropriate action in accordance with law. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed with the aforesaid observation. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________ V. ESWARAIAH, J July 3, 2008 DSK