IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.Y.SOMAYAJULU WRIT PETITION NO : 14860 of 2004 Between: 1 Parsa Pedalakshmi, W/o. Suresh @ Suseshu, Hindu, Female, Kethavaram, T. Narasapuram Mandal, West Godavari District. 2 Dasari Bharathi, W/o. Aaseervadam, Hindu, Female, Kethavaram, T. Narasapuram Mandal, West Godavari District. 3 Kakani Mairyamma, W/o. Vignesh, Hindu, Female, Kethavaram, T. Narasapuram Mandal, West Godavari District. 4 Boddapati Suguna, W/o. Rajarao, Hindu, Female, Kethavaram, T. Narasapuram Mandal, West Godavari District. 5 Kanuri Nagamm, W/o. Venkatesu, Hindu, Female, Kethavaram, T. Narasapuram Mandal, West Godavari District. 6 Chilaka Birejanamma, W/o. Venkatesu, Kethavaram, T. Narasapuram Mandal, West Godavari District. 7 Hetchehu Nagamma, W/o. Yosu, Hindu, Female, Kethavaram, T. Narasapuram Mandal, West Godavari District. 8 Kampeti Siddemma, W/o.Subbarao, Hindu, Female, Kethavaram, T. Narasapuram Mandal, West Godavari District. 9 Kuchipudi Lakshmi, W/o. Krishna, Hindu, Female, Kethavaram, T. Narasapuram Mandal, West Godavari District. 10 Vantipalli Sujatha, W/o. Venkateswararao, Hindu, Female, Kethavaram, T. Narasapuram Mandal, West Godavari District. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 The Superintendent of Police, West Godavari District, Eluru. 2 The Station House Officer, T. Narasapuram (Mandal), West Godavari District. 3 Sri I. Appa Rao, Mandal Revenue Officer, T. Narasapuram (Mandal), West Godavari District. 4 Addala Venkatarathnam Babu S/o. late Sri A. Parthasaradhi Varigedu village, Attili Mandal, W.G. Dist. 5 Addala Ratnavathi W/o. late Sri A. Parthasaradhi Varigedu village, Attili Mandal, W.G. Dist. RR 4&5 are impleaded as per court order dt. 11-11-2004 in WPMP 22967 of 2004 .....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 of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction declaring the action of the Respondents in dispossessing and interfering with our possession and enjoyment of the property situated in an extent of Ac. 9-50 Cents in R.S. NO. 227/3, 227/6 of Kethavaram Village of T. Narasapuram Mandal, West Godavari District, as illegal, arbitrary, violative of Article 14, 19 and 300 A of the constitution of India and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.K.CHIDAMBARAM Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.Y.SOMAYAJULU WRIT PETITION NO.14860 OF 2004 O R D E R This writ petition is filed questioning the action of the 3rd respondent in addressing a letter dated 13.08.2004 to the Station House Officer, T.Narasapuram (2nd respondent), requesting him to give protection to the garden of Sri Addala Venkataratnambabu in Ac.9-50 cents in R.S.Nos.227/3 and 227/6 of Kethavaram Village of T.Narasapuram Mandal, hereinafter referred to as the disputed land. 2. The case of the petitioners is that after pattas issued in favour of the original assignees in respect of the disputed land were cancelled, petitioners were issued pattas and were put in possession and enjoyment of the disputed land and as Respondents 4 and 5, claiming to be the legatees or heirs to the estate of the original assignees, are claiming to have right, possession and title over the said land and as the 3rd respondent made a suo motu request to the 2nd respondent to give police protection to the land belonging to Sri Addala Venkataratnambabu (4th respondent), 2nd respondent is interfering with their possession over the disputed land on the basis of the letter impugned in this writ petition. 3. The Sub-Inspector of Police, T.Narsapuram, filed his counter-affidavit on behalf of respondents 1 and 2, 3rd respondent also filed his counter affidavit. Respondents 4 and 5 came on record as parties to the writ petition by filing a petition to add them as party respondents to this petition. 4. Heard counsel for the petitioners and respondents 4 and 5. There is no representation on behalf of respondents 1 to 3. 5. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the 3rd respondent who addressed the letter impugned clearly admitted in para 3 of the counter-affidavit filed in this petition that the disputed land was in possession of the original assignees since 1961 and after the death of the original assignees and in possession and enjoyment of their heirs till the cancellation of the assignment in 1985, and after resumption of the said land, pattas were issued to the beneficiaries on 30.05.2000 and stated in para 4 of his counter-affidavit that the present assignees occupied the assigned lands on the basis that the disputed lands were assigned to them in 2000, he gave a report directing the 2nd respondent to grant protection to the 4th respondent, his action in writing the letter impugned is illegal. 6. The contention of the learned counsel for 4th respondent is that ever since the assignment made in favour of the predecessor-in-title of respondents 4 and 5, the disputed lands are in possession of respondents 4 and 5 and their predecessors-in-title, and as the report dated 24.08.2004 sent by the 3rd respondent to the R.D.O. Eluru clearly shows their possession over the disputed land and as the order canceling the assignment is without jurisdiction, there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned letter. 7. A reading of the letter impugned shows that the 3rd respondent, on the basis of the representation dated 13.08.2004 said to have been made by the 4th respondent to the 2nd respondent, visited the disputed land in pursuance of the order of the High Court, and requested the 2nd respondent to give protection to the garden of the 4th respondent. In my considered opinion, 2nd respondent (Station House Officer) has no right or authority to call for any remarks from the 3rd respondent. If the 3rd respondent felt that there was any law and order problem, he should have by invoking the relevant provisions of Criminal Procedure Code, issued the necessary proceedings, if he felt that there is any scramble for possession and directed the parties to take recourse to appropriate proceedings before the competent Courts. Under what authority he gave a direction to the 2nd respondent to grant police protection to the ‘garden of Sri Addala Venkataratnambabu’ and how he came to know that the disputed land is the garden of Sri Addala Venkataratnambabu, is not explained by him in the counter-affidavit, and so, that portion of the letter directing the 2nd respondent to grant police protection is liable to be, and hence is quashed. 8. The Authorities concerned are free to deal with the application for grant of pattas etc., which are now pending before them, without being influenced by the observations made in this order. 9. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. ------------------------------------ JUSTICE C.Y.SOMAYAJULU 19th FEBRUARY, 2008 PGS To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.Y.SOMAYAJULU W.P.NO.14860 OF 2004 19TH FEBRUARY, 2008