IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 6127 of 2009 Between: Gadam Venakateshwar Rao, S/o. Late G. Babu Rao, R/o. 11-3-286, New Mallepally, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Station House officer, Shah Inayat Gunj Police Station, Hyderabad. 2 M. Krishna Murthy, S/o. NOt Known to the petitioner, Circle Inspector of Police, Shah Inayat Gunj Police Station, Hyderabad. 3 Mr. Murali Krishna, S/o. NOt Known to the petitioner, Sub Inspector of Police, Shah Inayat Gunj Police Station, Hyderabad. 4 Mr. Goutam, S/o. NOt Known to the petitioner, R/O 14-8-385/2, Jumerat Bazar, Hyderabad. 5 Mr. Papa Singh, S/o. NOt Known to the petitioner, R/o. 14-10=558, Pahelwan Taleem, Lower Dhoolpet, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS 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 an appropriate Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the high handed action of the respondents No.1 to 3 in helping the respondents No.4 and 5 in grabbing the land in Sy.No. 163/2 Jumerat Bazaar, Nampally Village, Hyderabad as illegal and arbitrary. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.ABDUL NAJEEB KHAN Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following ORDER: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA Writ Petition No.6127 of 2009 Order: The petitioner claims to be the co-owner and possessor of the land admeasuring Acs.3.18 guntas in Survey No.163/2 of Jumerat Bazar, Nampally Village, Hyderabad, having succeeded to the same. It is the case of the petitioner that respondents 4 and 5, with a view to grab the said land, created false and fabricated documents and got measured the land, at the instance of respondents 1 to 3, who in turn delivered possession of portion of the land in Survey No.163/2 to respondents 4 and 5. It is the further case of the petitioner that when he approached respondents 1 to 3, they refused to look into the documents produced by him, and on the other hand, respondents 4 and 5 are proceeding with unauthorized constructions in the land in question. Hence, the present writ petition seeking appropriate directions in this regard. A counter affidavit is filed by the first respondent denying all the allegations made by the petitioner. It is stated in the counter affidavit that the dispute between the petitioner and respondents 4 and 5 is purely civil in nature and as such, respondents 1 to 3 have nothing to do with the same. It is categorically denied that they are helping respondents 4 and 5 to grab the land in question. In view of the specific stand taken by the official respondents in their counter affidavit, no further adjudication is necessary in this writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is closed. ___________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. Date: 31.03.2009 VGB