IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 29007 of 2008 Between: Devawath Chambli Bai W/o.Sri devawath Huniya Naik R/o.H.No.2-56/10, Chandanaik Nagar Tanda Khanamet village Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The STate of Andhra Pradesh,rep.by its Principal Secretary (Home), Secretariat, Hyderabad 2 The Director General of Police,Saifabad Hyderabad 3 The Circle Inspector of Police, Madhapura Police STation Hyderabad 4 The Circle Inspector of Police, C.B.C.I.D. Hyderabad 5 V.Ram Mohan Rao S/o.Late V.V.R.Sastry R/o.7-1-307/14/G/C/111, B.K.Guda Lingaiah Nagar,Shanthinagar, 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 or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondent No.3 and 4 in interfering with the possession of the petitioner at the behest of Respondent No.5 as illegal, contrary to law arbitrary, unjust contrary to Article 14,21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to take appropriate action on the Representation made by the petitioner dated 24.12.2008 in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.P.RADHIVE REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following : ORDER: The petitioner claims to be the absolute owner and possessor of the properties bearing H.No.2-56/11 admeasuring 600 square yards of land each in Sy.Nos.11/19, 11/20 and 11/21 situated at Lambadi Thanda, Khanamet Vilalge, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District having acquired the same under two different registered gift settlement deeds dated 8.11.2004 and 2.11.2004. The present writ petition is filed by her stating that respondents 3 and 4, who are the police officials, are interfering with the civil disputes between her and the 5th respondent. This Court while admitting the writ petition on 30.11.2008 granted interim directions to respondents 3 and 4 herein not to interfere with the civil disputes between the petitioner and the 5th respondent. Subsequently, a vacate stay petition was filed along with a counter affidavit by the 5th respondent seeking vacation of the said interim orders. It was stated that he (5th respondent) purchased the property in question from the original owners and the petitioner and her husband created forged documents and claiming ownership over the said property with the aid of anti social elements and in that connection a case was registered against them in Cr.No.89/2008 under Sections 420, 468, 471, 447 and 506 IPC on the file of the Madhapur Police Station and investigation is pending and in connection with the said crime, the husband of the petitioner was also remanded to judicial custody and at that point of time, the present writ petition is filed by the petitioner with false averments. Considering the same, this Court by an elaborate order 1.5.2009 directed respondents 3 and 4 herein to complete the investigation and submit their report. Thereafter, the matter underwent several adjournments and ultimately a report is filed by respondent No.3 as per which accused No.1 in the said crime viz., D.Huniya Naik was arrested on 1.7.2008 and was remanded and accused Nos.2 and 3 obtained anticipatory bails. Knowing fully well, a fake document was executed by the husband of the petitioner in her favour basing on which they were threatening the 5th respondent in order to grab the land in question and thereby committed the offences punishable under Sections 420, 468, 471, 447 and 506 IPC. It is also stated that charge sheet was also filed before the IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Kukatpally on 5.6.2009. In view of the above, it cannot be said the official respondents are interfering with the possession of the petitioners over the lands in question at the instance of the 5th respondent. Admittedly civil and criminal cases are pending against the petitioners. In view of the above report filed by the 3rd respondent, no further orders are required to be passed in this writ petition. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed and the petitioners are at liberty to defend their case before the criminal court. N.V.RAMANA,J Dt.16.7.2009 Msv Note: Furnish copy today