THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA Writ Petition No.25519 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioner claims to be the absolute owner and possessor of various extents of land situated in Survey Nos.181-A, 174-1, 174-4 and 174-3 of Kota Revenue Village, K.Gangavaram Mandal, East Godavari District and has been in possession and enjoyment of the same for the last ten years, having purchased the same in the name of his wife, the fifth respondent. He states that after sometime, certain disputes have arisen between him and the fifth respondent, resulting in registering a case by the fifth respondent under the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and also a case in Crime No.117 of 2008 under Section 498-A IPC. The petitioner has narrated several incidents/proceedings that ensued between him and the fifth respondent. While so, the petitioner states that as respondent Nos.3 to 5 are likely to take away the crop harvested by him in the subject lands, he claims to have made representations to respondent Nos.1 to 3 seeking police protection enabling him to harvest the crop in the subject lands, but in vain. Hence, he filed the present writ petition seeking appropriate directions in this regard. This Court issued notice before admission on 25.11.2009 and adjourned the matter for the instructions of the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home. Today, when the matter is taken up, the learned Assistant Government Pleader has produced written instructions, wherein it is stated that if the petitioner gets orders from the revenue officials, then only the second respondent would be in a position to give the protection as sought. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2. Though the petitioner has narrated so many facts bringing to the notice of this Court the necessity in seeking police protection for harvesting the crop in the subject lands, the fact remains that there are disputes between the petitioner and his wife, the fifth respondent. If he has any apprehension that respondent Nos.3 to 5 would take away the crop harvested by him, he ought to have approached appropriate forum seeking directions in that regard, but certainly writ petition is not a remedy. The remedy of the petitioner is elsewhere. In the circumstances, I do not see any grounds to entertain the writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed, at the admission stage, granting liberty to the petitioner to approach the competent authority for redressal of his grievance. No costs. ___________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. Date:24.06.2010 VGB