THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH W.P. No.17153 of 2009 Date: 08-10-2009 Between: D. Ravindranath … Petitioner And The Government of A.P., Represented by its Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others … Respondents THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH W.P. No.17153 of 2009 ORDER: This writ petition has been filed seeking Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in not registering the complaint of the petitioner, as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that he is the absolute owner and possessor of the land to an extent of Acs.4-01 guntas and Acs.2-00 guntas in Survey Nos.10A and 10 (part) of Chengicerla village, Ghatkesar Mandal, Ranga Reddy district. On 05.05.2008 when the petitioner supervising his labourers working in the field, clearing the bushes and leveling the land, the 4th respondent came to the land and created nuisance and tried to dispossess him. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a suit in O.S. No.1553 of 2008 and eventually got decree in his favour. It is also the specific case of the petitioner that on 01.07.2009 when he was present at the land in question, the 4th respondent again created nuisance and he approached the Uppal Police station to lodge a complaint but the Police refused to receive the complaint. The 3rd respondent, Circle Inspector, after perusing the decree, stated that he will conduct independent enquiries through Gram Panchayat and Mandal Revenue Officer and directed that only after such enquiry, the petitioner should carry out his work in the field. It is also submitted that the 3rd respondent asked him to produce the sale deeds and stated that only after satisfying about the title, he would permit the petitioner to do any work in the filed. Such an action on the part of the 3rd respondent is without jurisdiction and illegal. The 3rd and 4th respondents have colluded and the 3rd respondent is trying to aid the respondent No.4 in entering into the land in question. Eventually, it is also submitted that the action of the 3rd respondent in interfering in civil disputes is contrary to law arbitrary and illegal. Hence, the present writ petition. Counter has been filed by the respondent No.3 denying the allegations of the petitioner, inter alia, it is submitted that the petitioner had approached the Police on 01.07.2009 and after going through the complaint lodged by him, came to the conclusion that the contents of the complaint are purely civil in nature hence, they entered into the General Diary and advised him to seek his redressal before the Court of law. Therefore, no case was registered. It is specifically pointed out in the counter that the petitioner on the one hand stated that the Police are interfering in the civil disputes and on the other hand no action has been taken on the complaint lodged by him, which is purely civil in nature. Eventually it is submitted that if the petitioner got decree in his favour, it is always open for him to file Execution Petition. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader and perused the material on record. Admittedly, the petitioner filed a suit against the 4th respondent and got decree in his favour. Even after there is a decree in his favour, the 4th respondent again tried to interfere with his peaceful possession. Therefore, he lodged a complaint before the Police, who after perusing the contents of the complaint advised the petitioner to seek redrassal before the Court of law to execute the decree. It is obvious from the record that the petitioner on the one hand stated that the Police are interfering with the civil dispute and on the other hand stated that the Police are not registering the case on the complaint lodged by him. The petitioner having been approached the Police, with a complaint, the 3rd respondent advised the petitioner to approach the competent authority seeking redressal that does not amounts to interfering with the civil dispute. It is the specific submission on the part of the respondents that nature of the averments that are there in the complaint purely civil in nature, therefore, no case was registered. It is always open to the petitioner, if there is decree in his favour, to invoke the provisions under CPC by way of filing the Execution Petition, if the 4th respondent is trying to interfere with the land in question. This Court on 19.08.2009 while issuing notice before admission granted interim direction directing the 3rd respondent not to interfere with the civil dispute in respect of the land in question. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by the learned counsel, as this Court already directed the 3rd respondent, Circle Inspector, not to interfere with the civil dispute, I deem it appropriate to make the same as an order in the writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 3rd respondent, Circle Inspector, not to interfere with the civil dispute in respect of the land in question. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________________ JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH Date: 08-10-2009 LSK