IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION No : 7830 of 2008 Between: Smt. Sattagalla Sathyamma, W/o. Kondaiah, aged 52 years, R/o. Shankarpalli Village and Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Station House Officer, Shankarpalli Police Station, Ranga Reddy District. 2 The District Panchayat Officer, Ranga Reddy District, at Hyderabad. 3 The Executive Officer, Shankarpalli Gram Panchayat, Ranga Reddy District. 4 The Sarpanch, Shankarpalli Gram Panchayat, Ranga Reddy District. 5 B. Krishna Reddy, C/o. Vivek Wine Shop, Hyderabad to Shankerpally Road, Shankarpalli Village and Mandal, Ranga Reddy 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 will be pleased to issue an appropriate writ order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent authorities in trying to dispossess the petitioner from the land admeasuring 30 sq. yards in Sy.No.185 situated at Ward No. 6, Vaddera Colony, Shankerpally Village and Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, which was purchased by the petitioner under registered sale deed vide document No.2134 of 1995 dated 04-9-1995 as arbitrary, illegal, violative of Art. 14, 21 and 300A of the constitution of India and consequently direct the respondent authorities not to dispossess the petitioner from the land admeasuring 30 sq. yards in Sy.No. 185 situated at Ward No. 6, Vaddera Colony, Shankerpally Village and Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, which was purchased by the petitioner under registered sale deed vide document No. 2134 of 1995 dated 04-9-1995 and pass such other order or orders as the Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.A.SUDARSHAN REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR HOME Counsel for the Respondent No.2: G.P. for Panchayat Raj Counsel for the Respondent Nos.3 & 4 : Mr.Elisha Counsel for the Respondent No.5 : None The Court made the following : W.P.No.7830 of 2008 ORDER: According to the petitioner, she purchased an extent of 30 square yards in Sy.No.185 situated at Ward No.6, Vaddera colony, Shankerpally village, Ranga Reddy District under a registered sale deed vide document No.2134 of 1995 dated 04.09.1995 and since then she is in possession of the same and eking out her livelihood by installing a Tea bunk. While so, the 5th respondent is trying to interfere with her peaceful possession of the land, which is situated in a densely populated area. It is further stated that though a complaint was made to respondents 1 to 4 against the 5th respondent, no action has been initiated so far. Hence she approached this Court and filed the present writ petition seeking a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent-authorities in trying to dispossess the petitioner from the land admeasuring 30 Square yards in Sy.No.185 situated at Ward No.6, Vaddera colony, Shankerpally village and Mandal, Ranga Reddy District as arbitrary and illegal and consequently direct the respondent authorities not to dispossess her from the land in question. Heard both sides. According to the learned Government Pleader for respondents 3 and 4, the petitioner had already instituted a suit in O.S.No.26 of 2006 on the file of the Court of the Junior Civil Judge, Chevella against the 5th respondent and the Court granted ad interim injunction by order dated 31.01.2006 and the same was in force. Since the petitioner has already taken recourse to law by filing a suit, this writ petition is not maintainable. It is always open to the petitioner to seek police protection or get respondents 1 to 4 herein impleaded in the said suit and ask for injunction against them also. The writ petition is wholly misconceived. However, the learned Counsel for the petitioner has requested this Court that till the applications that may be filed by the petitioner before the Civil Court is decided, the respondents may be directed not to interfere with her possession. In the circumstances, the petitioner may file petitions for impleadment as well as injunction before the Civil Court within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and the respondents are directed not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner over the land in question till the said petitions are decided by the Civil Court. The writ petition is dismissed at the stage of admission subject to above direction. No order as to costs. ____________________________ (GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J) 11-04-2008 Gsn.