IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 3908 of 2008 Between: Panga Narsimhulu Yadav, S/o. P. Nagaiah, A.P. Vikalangula Co-op. Corporation, R/o. H.No. 1-7-1002/45/B, Ramnagar, Hyderabad ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Govt. of A.P. Rep by its District Collector, Ranga Reddy District. 2 The Station House Officer, P.S. Saroornagar, Cyberabad, Ranga Reddy District. 3 Sri A. Satyanarayana, S/o. Ilaiah, R/o. 08-8-636, (08-02-11/2/1 old), Green Park Colony, Karmanghat, Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. .....RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.CHALLASIVASANKAR Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 and 2: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following Order: This writ petition is filed for a Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the second respondent in not giving protection to recover petitioner’s plot bearing No.A/194 admeasuring 300 sq. yards comprised in Sy.No.304 at Kharmanghat village of Ranga Reddy District as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner claims to be the owner of the above mentioned property. The third respondent filed O.S.No.1372 of 2000 on the file of the Court of the Junior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District for perpetual injunction against the petitioner in respect of plot No.3 in Sy.No.304 of Tapovan Colony, Saroornagar Mandal. The petitioner alleged that the said suit was dismissed by judgment and decree dated 15-11-2007, that the third respondent was accorded building permission from the L.B.Nagar Municipality on the strength of fake documents filed by the third respondent and on the representation made by the petitioner, the Commissioner, L.B.Nagar Municipality cancelled the said permission vide his proceedings dated 28-09-2004. The petitioner further alleged that after the dismissal of the said suit, the third respondent did not choose to vacate plot No.A/194, that he made representations to the Tahsildar, Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District on 24-12-2007 and 15-01-2008 and the said Tahsildar vide his letter dated 06-02-2008 requested the second respondent to give protection to the petitioner for recovery of the said property as the petitioner is a physically handicapped person. The grievance of the petitioner is that despite the said letter, the second respondent is not giving protection to the petitioner to enable him to recover the above mentioned property from the third respondent. Admittedly, there is a dispute between the petitioner and the third respondent with respect to the above mentioned property. If the petitioner claims to be the owner of the property and the third respondent is in unlawful occupation of the same, he is entitled to sue the third respondent for recovery of possession. Admittedly, the petitioner has not taken recourse to this common law remedy. Instead the petitioner embarked upon a short-cut method by approaching the Tahsildar, who readily obliged him by writing a letter to the second respondent, in recovering the possession of the property. Learned counsel for the petitioner is unable to trace this power of the Tahsildar to any substantive legal provision. If the police are permitted to recover possession forcibly from any person even if he is in unlawful possession, that would lead to anarchy in the society. The only remedy available for the petitioner to recover possession of his immovable property is to approach the Court of competent jurisdiction and convince the Court to pass a decree. It would then be permissible for him to seek recovery of possession in terms of such decree. In this view of the matter, the relief sought for in this writ petition is wholly misconceived. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. No order as to costs. ________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J Dt:11-03-2008 usd