IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 7350 of 2008 Between: Kurati Eswara Rao S/o.Vadapalli R/o.Chodibadavalanka H/o.Maskapalli Gangavaram(M) E.G Dist ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Deputy Superintendent of Police Ramachandrapuram E.G Dist 2 Sub-Inspector of Police K.Gangavaram E.G Dist 3 Tahasildar K.Gangavaram(M) E.G Dist 4 Bola Subba Rao S/o.not known R/o.Pillanka Shivar Kotha Lanka (V) Tallarevu(M) E.G Dist 5 Bola Satti Pandu R/o.Pillanka Shivar Kotha Lanka (V) Tallarevu(M) E.G Dist .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:SMT.K.V.RAJASREE Counsel for the Respondents: AGP FOR HOME The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to declare the action of respondent Nos.1 and 2 in not protecting the petitioner’s leasehold land in Survey No.216/B admeasuring Ac.2.50 cents situated in Chodibadavalanka, K.Gangavaram Mandal, East Godavari District, as illegal and arbitrary. In the affidavit filed by the petitioner, it is alleged that he holds leasehold rights of the above-mentioned land. He further alleged that respondent Nos.4 and 5, who are the residents of Pillanka Shivar Kothalanka Village, Tallarevu Mandal, and the owners of the neighbouring land, are trying to grab the petitioner’s land taking advantage of his physical and financial incapacity and that the petitioner approached the Director General of Police, who endorsed the letter submitted by the petitioner to the Superintendent of Police, East Godavari. The petitioner further claimed that thereafter, the Sub- Inspector of Police, K.Gangavaram took respondent Nos.4 and 5 into custody and later released on 18.01.2008. The grievance of the petitioner is that after their release, they are again seeking to interfere with the enjoyment of his property. I have heard Smt. K.V.Rajasree, learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. On the petitioner’s own showing, the complaint given by him was attended to by the police by arresting the persons who sought to interfere with his possession. If the said persons again seek to repeat their alleged unlawful acts, the petitioner is not remediless. The petitioner has remedies available under common law, which enable him to proceed against the alleged offenders by invoking both civil and criminal remedies. Unless the petitioner convinced the Court of competent jurisdiction to grant an order against the persons who are seeking to unlawfully encroaching the petitioner’s land or attempting to grab the land, the petitioner is not entitled to straight away seek police protection to enable him to enjoy his property. On the above premises, the writ petition is dismissed leaving the petitioner free to avail his remedies in law. As a sequel to dismissal of main petition, WPMP.No.9663 of 2008 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is also dismissed. C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 4th APRIL, 2008 kvni