THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO. 6022 OF 2006 Dated 22nd June, 2010 Between: Turram Ramanna Dora …Petitioner And Station House Officer and three others …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Ms Vasudha Nagaraj Counsel respondents 1 and 2 : AGP for Home Counsel for respondent No.3 : AGP for Social Welfare Counsel for respondent No.4 : Sri Badana Bhaskar Rao The Court made the following ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the inaction of the police in providing protection to the petitioner’s ancestral lands admeasuring Acs.20.46 cents in Survey Nos.167, 168, 180/1, 180/2, 180/3, 181, 183, 228/2, 228/3, 228/4 of Pothukonda, H/o Indukurupeta Village, Devipatnam Mandal, East Godavari District from forcible encroachment and cutting down of trees by respondent No.4 as unlawful and dereliction of their duty. At the hearing, it is submitted by Sri Badana Bhaskar Rao, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4, and fairly conceded by Ms.Vasudha Nagaraj, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, that Writ Petition No.22428 of 2005 raising similar pleas and claiming identical relief was dismissed by this Court by order dated 27.09.2007. For the same reasons as contained in the said order, which shall be treated as a part of this order, no relief can be granted in this writ petition. In addition to the reasons contained in the said order, it is apt to refer to the observations of the Supreme Court in P.R.Muralidharan vs. Swamy Dharmananda Theerth Padar[1], which are reproduced below. “It would be an abuse of process for a writ petitioner to approach the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of Mandamus directing the police authorities to protect his claimed possession of a property without first establishing his possession in an appropriate civil Court. The temptation to grant relief in cases of this nature should be resisted by the High Court. The wide jurisdiction under Article 226 would remain effective and meaningful only when it is exercised prudently and in appropriate cases”. The learned counsel for the petitioner, however, submitted that when the acts of respondent No.4 constitute an offence, it is the bounden duty of respondent No.1 to register a case and take action against respondent No.4. While there can be no dispute on the proposition advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is not specifically pleaded by the petitioner as to when he has given the complaint to respondent No.1. No doubt, the petitioner appeared to have approached respondent No.3 with a complaint against respondent No.1 that in collusion with respondent No.4 he is terrorising him. If the petitioner has a grievance in that respect, he is entitled to approach respondent No.2 with appropriate complaint and if such a complaint is received by respondent No.2 and if he is satisfied that the acts complained of against respondent No.4 constitute an offence, he shall issue appropriate instructions to respondent No.1 to take action according to law. If the petitioner is in possession and his purported possession is threatened by respondent No.4, he is also entitled to approach the competent Court to protect his possession. Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of main petition, interim order dated 27.03.2006 is vacated. WPMP No.7690 of 2006 and WVMP No.2476 of 2007 are disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 22nd June, 2010 vrn [1] 2006 (4) SCC 4501