IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 10802 of 2009 Between: P.Tirumala Reddy S/o.Venkata Reddy R/o.8-2-703/6/A Road No.12, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Commissioner of Police, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad 2 The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Asifnagar, Hyderabad 3 The Station House Officer, Asif Nagar Police station Hyderabad .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.M.V.SURESH Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following : ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed for a writ of Mandamus to direct respondent No.3 to provide police protection to the petitioner as per his representation dated 27-05-2009. In his affidavit, the petitioner narrated several facts, which pertain to his purported purchase of various extents of lands under purported possessory agreement of sale dated 22-08-2003 from third parties. The petitioner also referred to his filing a Land Grabbing Case, a series of Writ Petitions in this Court against third parties, who, according to him, were trying to grab the said lands, and also a Hebeas Corpus Writ Petition to produce his two security guards, who were allegedly kidnapped by the third parties. The grievance of the petitioner in this Writ Petition is that though he submitted his representation dated 27-05-2009 to the respondents to provide Police security to protect the property from being occupied by the third parties, no action is being taken. After hearing Sri M.V.Suresh, learned Counsel for the petitioner, I am of the considered view that this Writ Petition is wholly misconceived. In the first place, though serious allegations are made against the third parties, who were allegedly trying to grab the property in dispute, they are not impleaded as parties to this Writ Petition. In their absence, it is not possible for this Court to ascertain the veracity of the claim of the petitioner regarding his right to the property and also the alleged unlawful activities of the third parties. Moreover, if the third parties allegedly interfered with the property in dispute, in respect of which the petitioner claims that different Courts have passed different orders in his favour, the said act constitutes violation of those orders. The petitioner is entitled to initiate appropriate proceedings before the Courts concerned, which passed the orders, to ensure compliance of the same. If the alleged acts complained of by the petitioner constitute criminal offences, the petitioner is entitled to approach the respondents with a complaint and if appropriate action is not taken thereon, the petitioner is left with remedies under the Code of Criminal Procedure to approach the Jurisdictional Magistrate with a private complaint. In my view, the petitioner cannot seek Police protection in respect of a property, which appears to be in serious dispute and neither the Constitution nor the Code of Criminal Procedure castes any such obligation on the Police. T h e Judgement of this Court reported in G.Subhash Reddy vs. State of A.P. and others[1] cited by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, in support of his contention, has no relevance to the facts of this Case because the said judgment pertains to the duty of the Police to maintain law and order and to protect the life and personal liberty of citizens and the property of the State. Therefore, the said judgment cannot be relied upon for claiming Police protection to secure private property of the petitioner. For the above-mentioned reasons, the Writ Petition is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the Writ Petition, WPMP.No.13878 of 2009 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. _________________________ (C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J) 3rd June, 2008 LUR [1] 1997(2) ALD 694