THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.2895 OF 2010 Dated 12th March, 2010 Between: Datla Suryanarayana Raju …Petitioner And The Superintendent of Police and three Others …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Sri T.Balaji Counsel for the respondents : AGP for Home The Court made the following ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the inaction of respondents 1 and 2 to provide protection to the petitioner’s patta lands to the extent of 111.20 acres in Survey Nos.20 to 27 of Ramanujavaram Sivaru, Kondayagudem Village, Manuguru Mandal, Khammam District, as per the directions of respondents 3 and 4, as arbitrary and illegal. I have heard Sri T.Balaji, learned counsel for the petitioner, and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home representing respondents 1 and 2. The petitioner pleaded that the above mentioned lands originally belonged to one Sri Buddaraju Venkatapathy Raju, S/o Surrappa Raju; that in the year 1955 the said person executed a Will in favour of Sri P.B. Parthasararadhi for the purpose of maintenance and that after passing away of Venkatapathy Raju, his wife and the said Parthasaradhi sold away the lands to Sri P.V.Raghunatha Charyulu under a registered document. The petitioner further pleaded that in the year 1975, the said Raghunatha Charyulu had filed a land ceiling declaration in respect of 111.20 acres; that out of the said land another Will was executed on 02.10.1978 by dividing 50% of land in favour of Raju’s family and balance 50% in favour of Raghunatha Charyulu and that for the remaining lands of 50%, the petitioner is the caretaker of the land and that he is in possession thereof. The petitioner further pleaded that when certain antisocial elements sought to interfere with his possession, he filed W.P. No 2342 of 1996, which was disposed of by this Court by order dated 03.12.2004, wherein this Court permitted the petitioner to approach the official respondents therein for conduct of survey and fixing boundaries. The petitioner pleaded that in pursuance of the said order, boundaries were fixed and that when the antisocial elements again tried to interfere with his peaceful possession, the petitioner made a representation to respondents 3 and 4 to direct respondent No.2 to provide police protection to the above lands and that respondent No.4 thereupon addressed letter dated 16.10.2009 to respondent No.2 to take necessary action and stop encroachment and even respondent No.3 made an endorsement on the petitioner’s representation dated 28.11.2009 directing respondent No.4 to provide police protection to the above lands. In my considered opinion, this writ petition is wholly misconceived. The petitioner has not impleaded the persons, who have allegedly tried to encroach into the lands in question. If the possession of the petitioner is sought to be interfered with by any person, he is left with two remedies in law. If such interference constitutes an offence, the petitioner is entitled to file a criminal complaint before the police. If the petitioner’s civil rights are violated by such interference, he is entitled to approach the competent civil Court to protect his possession or for recovery thereof. If on a complaint made by the petitioner, the police find that an offence is committed, they are under legal obligation to prosecute the offenders. The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed before the Court the first information report registered on 26.11.2009 against certain persons named therein. To the extent of this complaint, it is open to the petitioner to pursue with respondent No.2. As regards the relief claimed by the petitioner for giving police protection, in my opinion, he is not entitled to such a relief. As noted above if the petitioner’s civil rights are sought to be defeated, he is entitled to approach the competent Court of law for appropriate relief. In the absence of a direction, decree or order passed by the competent Court, the police cannot be permitted to meddle with the civil disputes between the private parties. Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of main petition, WPMP Nos.3814 and 7061 of 2010 are disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 12th March, 2010 vrn