IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 3301 of 2008 Between: V.Sri Hari S/o.Hanumanthu R/o.H.No.3-7, Kondapur village, Ghatkesar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District 501 301. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Hanumanth S/o.Lingaiah R/o. Boduppal, Ghatkesar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. 2 The Commissioner of Police, Cyberabad, Ranga Reddy District, Office situated at Lkdikapool, Hyderabad. 3 The Station House Officer, Uppal Police Station, Cyberabad, Ranga Reddy District. .....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 more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 1st respondent in trying to grab the Plot No.12 in Survey No. 141 an extent of 116.5 Sq. Yards situated at Boduppal village, Ranga Reddy District which is illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and violative of Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the 2nd and 3rd respondent to provide police protection to the petitioner by evicting the 1st respondent and his associates from Plot No. 12 in Survey No. 141 to an extent of 116.5 Sq. Yards, situated at Boduppal village, Ranga Reddy District, and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.M.KALIDAS Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following : ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.3301 of 2008 ORDER: In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks a direction by way of a Mandamus, to declare the action of the 1st respondent in trying to grab the Plot No.12 in Sy.No.141, admeasuring 116.5. sq. yards, situated in Boduppal Village, Ranga Redy District, as illegal and arbitrary, and consequently direct the respondents 2 and 3 to provide Police protection to the petitioner by evicting the 1st respondent. It is the grievance of the petitioner that he is the owner of the said land, and that the 1st respondent herein has encroached into the said land, and constructed a house therein. It is stated that in spite of repeated complaints, no action has been taken by the respondents 2 and 3. The learned Government Pleader for Home, on instructions submits that no complaints were received by the Police, alleging any trespass. The petitioner has filed a copy of the complaint, said to have been filed before the Police, on 03-01-2008. A perusal of the said complaint discloses that the 1st respondent has constructed a house in his plot. Even in the present writ petition, the petitioner seeks a direction only against the 1st respondent, who is a private party, to prevent him from grabbing the piece of land, owned by the petitioner, covered by plot No.12, in Sy.No.141. According to the petitioner, the 1st respondent is in possession of the said property. Even assuming that there is any encroachment by the 1st respondent, the remedy available to the petitioner is, either to approach the Civil Court, for recovery of possession, or move the appropriate Tribunal, under the Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, but he cannot seek any direction by way of Mandamus, to protect the alleged grabbing. Further, it is stated that no complaints were received by the respondents, as yet. If there is any allegation of trespass by the 1st respondent, the petitioner as well can move by filing a complaint before the Magistrate, but he cannot seek any directions, as prayed for, in the writ petition. In that view of the matter, the writ petition is devoid of any merits, and the same is accordingly dismissed. It is, however, open to the petitioner to seek appropriate remedy, available under law. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J. Dt.25-02-2008. KO To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{KURR}