HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY Writ Petition No.783 of 2008 Dated: February 19, 2008 Between: T. Vamsidhar, S/o. T. Nageswar Rao, R/o. Gudur, Nellore District, temporarily R/o. C/o.M. Rajeswar Reddy, 2-2-154, Hanuman Sai Nagar, Uppal, Hyderabad. … Petitioner And The Station House Officer, Pahadi Sharif Police Station, Pahadi Sharif, Ranga Reddy District. … Respondent Order: Petitioner, in this writ petition, seeks directions by way of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondent, Station House Officer, Pahadi Sharif Police Station, in interfering with his possession and enjoyment over the land admeasuring Ac.5.17 guntas and Ac.4.04 guntas in S.Nos.225/3 and 231/3 respectively, situated at Jalpally village, Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, as arbitrary, illegal and without jurisdiction. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Home appearing for the respondent. 3. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, it is stated that petitioner is the owner and possessor of land admeasuring Ac.5.17 guntas and Ac.4.04 guntas in S.Nos.225/3 and 231/3 respectively, situated at Jalpally village, Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, having purchased the same from the original owner Mr. R.A. Nandam, S/o. Nagabhushanam, by registered sale deed dated 30-06- 2005, after verifying the title in predecessor the said property. It is stated that based on the application filed by the petitioner, revenue records have been corrected and issued in his name. The grievance of the petitioner is that there was a civil dispute pending in O.S.No.24 of 1995 on the file of the learned District Judge, Ranga Reddy and in spite of the dismissal of the said suit, at the instance of one Mr. Abdul Salim Khan, the respondent is interfering with his right and possession over the land in question and even called him to the Police Station on 15-12-2007. 4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the dispute is of civil nature and at the instance of Mr. Abdul Salim Khan, respondent is interfering with the petitioner’s possession over the land in question and the same is illegal and arbitrary. 5. Respondent has filed counter affidavit stating that one Mr. Abdul Salim Khan, resident of Jalpally village, has lodged a petition before the Deputy Commissioner of Police, L.B. Nagar Zone, Hyderabad, stating that he is the owner of the land in Sy.Nos.221, 222, 225 to 233, situated at Jalpally village, which he is in possession and enjoyment for more than 25 years and when there was interference by third parties, he filed a suit in O.S.No.24 of 1995 on the file of the learned District Judge, Ranga Reddy, which was partly decreed and the same was subject matter of appeal in A.S.No.111 of 1995 before this court. It is stated that the said Abdul Salim Khan has stated in the complaint dated 08-11-2007 that in spite of the orders of status quo dated 19-12- 1995, passed by this court in C.M.P.No.1590 of 2005 in A.S.No.111 of 1995, there was a trespass into the said land by third parties and as such requested to take action. It is further stated that consequent to such complaint and as per the instructions of the Deputy Commissioner of Police, entries were made in the General Diary and preliminary investigation is conducted. While denying interference, as alleged by the petitioner, it is stated that enquiries revealed that the land in questions belongs to the Government and the same was subject of suit in O.S.No.24 of 1995 on the file of the learned District Judge, Ranga Reddy and the said issue is pending consideration before this court in A.S.No.111 of 1995 and this court has passed orders directing parties to maintain status quo. It is further stated that as the dispute is of civil nature, after conducting enquiries, parties were directed to maintain status quo as per the orders of this court referred above. 6. It is submitted by learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondent that though the petitioner herein claims title and possession of the land in question from Mr. R.A. Nandam, but, however, the said person, who is the 8th defendant in the suit in O.S.No.24 of 1995, has taken a stand that he has already submitted a petition seeking to surrender his land to the Government. It is further submitted that as much as enquiries were conducted with reference to the complaint filed by the complainant, Mr. Abdul Salim Khan, it cannot be said that there is interference by the respondent-Police and prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 7. From the averments in the counter affidavit filed by the respondent, it appears that there are serious factual disputes between private parties as well as the Government with regard to the land in question. It is not in dispute that that the very same land is subject matter of the suit in O.S.No.24 of 1995, on the file of the learned District Judge, Ranga Reddy, and which is presently pending in A.S.No.111/95 before this court. It is also not in dispute that this court passed orders directing parties to maintain status quo in C.M.P.No.1590 of 2005. Though it is the case of the petitioner that there is illegal interference by the respondent-Police and allegations are made against one Mr. Abdul Salim Khan, alleging that, only at his instance, there is interference, the said person is not made party respondent in the writ petition. When there is a complaint that there is encroachment and trespass into the land, it is the duty of the Police to make an enquiry into the matter. If such enquiry is conducted, it cannot be said that there is interference by the Police. Respondent-Police acted on the complaint of Mr. Abdul Salim Khan and enquired into the matter covering the contents of such complaint. During the course of arguments, a copy of the judgment in O.S.No.24 of 1995, on the file of the learned District Judge, Ranga Reddy, and further orders of this court in C.M.P.No.1590 of 2005 in A.S.No.111 of 1995, are made available. Though it is the case of the petitioner that he has purchased the land in question from R.A. Nandam, who is the 8th defendant in the said suit, but however, the State of Andhra Pradesh, which is the 1st defendant in the suit appeared to have taken a stand that, on initiating proceedings for cancellation of assignments, which were earlier made, 8th defendant submitted a petition for surrender of the said land. Further, the plaintiffs carried the matter in appeal before this court in A.S.No.111 of 1995. It is also not in dispute that this court passed orders directing parties to maintain status quo in C.M.P.No.1590 of 2005. 8. From the aforesaid aspects, it is clear that there is a serious factual dispute with regard to title and possession and moreover the appeal filed against the judgment and decree in O.S.No.24 of 1995, is pending in A.S.No.111 of 1995. It is also not in dispute that this court has passed order directing parties to maintain status quo in C.M.P.No.1590 of 2005 in the said first appeal and the said Abdul Salim Khan, who is the complainant before the Police is one representing the plaintiffs in the suit and the appeal filed before this court. When a complaint is filed by the said Abdul Salim Khan alleging trespass by third parties, it cannot be said that there is interference by the Police. Though it is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that even according to the respondent, it was found that petitioner was in possession of the land, but in absence of complainant and other persons in the said suit who are also claiming possession being made party respondents in the writ petition, it is not possible for this court to record any finding on the title and possession over the land in question. As much as it is the case of the respondent that enquiry was conducted pursuant to the complaint made by Mr. Abdul Salim Khan, it cannot be said that there is interference by the Police in dispute of civil nature. 9. The writ petition is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. __________________________ JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY. February 19, 2008 MRR