IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF APRIL, TWO THOUSAND EIGHT ONLY PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.6954 of 2008 Between: Shaik Abdullah … Petitioner AND The Commissioner of Police, Cyberabad, Lakdi Ka Pool, Ranga Reddy District & others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Sri Suresh Shiv Sagar Counsel for the respondents: AGP for Home This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.6954 of 2008 ORDER:- This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.4 in interfering in the civil dispute with respect to the property bearing municipal No.8-1-207/12/31 in Plot Nos.31 and 32 in Sy.No.166 admeasuring 410 square yards of Mailardevpally Village, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District and the inaction of respondent No.1 in taking action on complaint dated 25.03.2008 filed by the petitioner against respondent No.4, as illegal and arbitrary. In his affidavit, the petitioner claimed that he purchased the abovementioned property under a registered sale deed dated 26.11.2007 executed by its original owner Meherunnisa Begum, that when his vendor had a dispute with one Kamala Devi, the same ended in a compromise under a memorandum of understanding executed between them and that as such there is no dispute between the petitioner and his vendor or with the said Kamala Devi. The petitioner’s grievance is that respondent No.4 has been unduly interfering with the possession and enjoyment of his property and threatening him that he will implicate him in a false criminal case, if he does not vacate the abovementioned premises. The petitioner claimed that he gave a complaint to respondent Nos.1 to 3 on 25.03.2008 against respondent No.4, but no action has been taken so far. Having heard Sri Suresh Shiv Sagar, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, I am of the opinion that interests of justice would be met if the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.1 to consider representation dated 25.03.2008 said to have been sent by the petitioner against respondent No.4 and enquire into the same. If respondent No.1 finds that respondent No.4 is unduly interfering with the property rights of the petitioner without following due process of law, he shall initiate action against respondent No.4. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, WPMP.No.9104 of 2008 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 01.04.2008 Note:- Issue CC in three days. B/o. ES