IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 19840 of 2008 Between: K.Gangadhar S/o.Balachander Rammandir Road Kamareddy,Nizamabad District ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Sub Divisional Police Officer Siricilla,Karimnagar District 2 The Inspector of Police Sircilla Karimnagar District 3 The Sub Inspector of Police Yellareddypeta Sircilla(M) Karimnagar District 4 Mr Sangula Laxman S/o Narsaiah Yellareddypet(V) &(M) Karimnagar District .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 a writ, order or orders particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents Nos.1, 2,&3 herein in not registering the case against the Respondent No.4 is arbitrary and an illegal. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.M.RAMA RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following : O R D E R:- The petitioner asserts that he is the owner and possessor of an agricultural land in an extent of Ac.1.24 guntas in S.No.375 situated in Yellareddypet village, Karimnagar having purchased it under a registered sale deed Document No.14740 of 2006 from one Ambaripeta Laxmi and fenced the same with barbed wire. While so, the 4th respondent, who has no right over the land, along with unsocial elements removed the fencing and damaged the barbed wire worth Rs.40,675/-. Then, the petitioner on 1.7.2008, made a complaint to respondents 1 to 3 requesting them to take action against the 4th respondent, and it is his grievance that respondents 1 to 3 have not taken any action thereon nor registered any crime against the 4th respondent in spite of his repeated representations, while the 4th respondent along with unsocial elements is threatening and trying to interfere with his peaceful possession. Hence, the petitioner questioning the inaction of the respondents in taking action on his complaint, filed this writ petition. The 3rd respondent has filed counter affidavit inter alia denying the averments made by the petitioner in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition and contended that earlier, the petitioner lodged a complaint on 3.12.2007 stating that he along with his partners purchased an extent of Ac.1.24 guntas of land in S.No.375 from one Ambaripet Laxmi under a registered sale deed dated 24.4.2006 and since then they have been in possession and enjoyment of the same and further that one Sanugula Laxman, who is the 4th respondent herein along with unsocial elements tried to encroach the land and that on 1.12.2007, when the petitioner along with his partners and labour went to fence the land, the said Laxman, with the assistance and support of unsocial elements, forcibly entered the land and cremated the dead body of his father at 12:00 hours and also threatened them with dire consequences, and hence requested to take necessary action. Based on the contents of the petitioner’s complaint a case in Cr.No.134 of 2007 under Sections 447, 427, 506 IPC was registered against Sanugula Laxman and others and action was taken against them. As already a case in Cr.No.134 of 2007 was registered, which is pending investigation, the Head Constable, received the petitioner’s complaint dated 1.7.2008 whose contents are almost the same as the contents of the earlier complaint dated 3.12.2007, and as these two complaints are one and the same, the respondents-police did not initiate any action on the later complaint. The petitioner sent his complaint, dated 1.7.2008 through Ambaripet Laxmi but he did not turn up as of now to know the fate of his complaint and filed this writ petition. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Home for respondents 1 to 3. Day in and day out, the police cannot protect the petitioner’s land. If any person or persons is interfering with the possession of his land, the remedy of the petitioner is to file civil suit and obtain injunction and claim compensation/damages against the persons who are interfering with his possession and indulging in damaging his property. However, this Court cannot grant any direction to the police to protect the land of the petitioner, more particularly when the police are meant to maintain the law and order in the society. Hence, giving liberty to the petitioner to approach the competent civil Court having jurisdiction seeking appropriate relief, and directing respondent 1 to 3 to expedite the investigation into the complaint made by the petitioner, which is said to have already been registered, this Writ Petition is closed. No costs. ______________ N.V.RAMANA, J 2nd February, 2009 bcj