IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO : 23047 of 2008 Between: 1 Talasila Vyasa Maharshi, S/o. Late Sivaramakrishna, R/o. HIGH/116, Bharatnagar Colony, Hyderabad. 2 Talasila Mamatha, W/o. T.V. Maharshi, R/o. HIGH/116, Bharatnagar Colony, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 The Station House Officer, Kukatpally Police Station, Kukatpally, Ranga Reddy District. 2 Mr. T. Ravinder, S/o. Not Known to the Petitioners Working as Sub-Inspector of Police, Kukatpally Police Station, Kukatpally, Ranga Reddy District. 3 The Deputy Commissioner of Police, Balanagar Zone. 4 The Secretary to Home, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or direction particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 1st Respondent in interfering the Civil rights of the petitioners in respect of their immovable property bearing No. 5-5-35/258/2/A1 on plot No.1 in S.No. 464 admeasuring 306.0 Square Yards situated at Vignanpuri Colony, Kukatpally Village and Municipality Balanagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District and calling them to the Police Station and perpertrating harassment and directing the petitioners and their tenant to vacate the premises as arbitrary, unconstitutional , without jurisdiction, illegal and void and consequently direct the 1st respondent not to interfere with the civil rights of the petitioners and not to harass the them calling to the Police Station in that connection. Counsel for the Petitioner:MRK.SREENIVAS Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU W.P. No. 23047 of 2008 O R D E R: This writ petition is filed seeking a Mandamus declaring the action of the 1st respondent in interfering with the civil rights of the petitioners in respect of the immovable property bearing No.5-5- 35/258/A1 in S.No. 464, admeasuring 306 Sq. yards, situated at Vignanpuri Colony, Kukatpally Village and Municipality, Balanagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, as arbitrary and illegal. The case of the petitioners is that the 2nd petitioner purchased house bearing No. 5-5-35/258/2/A1 on plot No.1 in S.No. 464 admeasuring 306 Sq. yards at Vignanpuri Colony from one D. Bhaskar Rao s/o Jangaiah through his G.P.A. holder by name Nandigam Lakshmi Narsimha Rao s/o Seetharamaiah under a registered sale deed bearing document No.3517/2005 dated 5-5-2005 for a valuable consideration and obtained possession from the vendor. Since the date of purchase, the petitioners are in possession and enjoyment of the said property as exclusive owners, till date. The said property is mutated in their name and they are regularly paying tax to the Municipality. They developed the said property by obtaining loan from Canara Bank and constructed a shed in it. They have leased out the said property to M/s Sri Lakshmi Caterers represented by its Proprietor Bhanu Prasad under a rental agreement in the year 2005 and extended the lease from time to time. At present, the lessee is doing the catering business in the said property. Thus, they are maintaining their possession in the said property. Apart from the said property, they have also purchased other adjacent Plot No.10 abutting to it. As the matter stood thus, in the month of August, 2008 one G. Raja Ratna Reddy s/o Joji Reddy r/o Reddypuram village of Warangal District and his men illegally interfered into their property, threatened with dire consequences and intimidated them. As such, they lodged a complaint with Kukatpally Police Station on 14.8.2008. It is further stated that the petitioners continued their possession on the land and they were under the impression that the police will take appropriate action against the said Rajaratna Reddy, but no action was taken by the police. Therefore, petitioner No.2 filed a private complaint on the file of IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Kukatpally and the same was referred to the Police Station, Kukatpally and the police registered a case in Cr.No.1035 of 2008 against the said Rajaratnareddy and two others under Sections 448 and 506 IPC. The 1st respondent issued notice dated 27.9.2008 under Section 91/161 IPC calling the petitioner No.1 to appear before him with all relevant documents and witnesses to prove their allegations against the accused persons. Accordingly the petitioners went to the police station with the relevant documentary evidence as per the notice, but the 1st respondent was not available. The petitioners again went to the police station on the next day and then also the 1st respondent was not available. Though the petitioners went to the police station 3 to 4 times, the 1st respondent avoided to receive the evidence. While the things stood thus, on 14.10.2008 the 1st respondent called the petitioners to the police station and when they went as such, he abused them in filthy language and made them to wait in the premises of the police station till 7.00 p.m. Then, he called them into the police station and directed them to hand over the property to Raja Ratna Reddy, who is A-1 in the complaint filed by the petitioners, or else to face dire consequences. Hence this writ petition. There is no necessity of going into all the details. The respondent No.2 has filed counter stating that there are two complaints registered against the said property, 1) Cr.No. 1061 of 2008 under Sections 420, 448, 427, 506, 120-B read with IPC and 2) Cr.No.1035 of 2008 under Section 448, 506 IPC and the investigation is going on. The petitioners were only asked to show the documentary evidence but they were never asked to vacate the premises. The allegations made in the writ affidavit are false and incorrect. He never harassed or interfered with the civil disputes of the petitioners. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents not to harass the petitioners unnecessarily and interfere with their civil disputes without following the due process of law. C.V. RAMULU, J. Date: 24-11-2008. MVB.