IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION No. 17773 OF 2009 Between: V.Shanker …… petitioner AND The Commissioner of Police, Cyberabad, R.R.District. and others. ......Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Counsel for the Respondents: The Court made the following:- THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH W.P. No.17773 of 2009 ORDER: This writ petition has been filed seeking Writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the respondents 1 to 3 in taking any action on the report dated 09.06.2009 lodged by the petitioner against the respondents 4 and 5, as illegal, arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents 1 to 3 to take action according to law forthwith against the respondents 4 and 5. The case of the petitioner is that he along with others have filed a W.P. No.24130 of 1996 questioning the letter dated 23.09.1996 addressed by the District Collector directing the Sub Registrar, Hayathnagar, not to entertain any registration in respect of land in Survey Nos.197/2 to 197/49 of Nadergul Village, Saroornagar Mandal, Rangareddy District. Eventually, the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 09.04.2008 quashed the proceedings of the respondent authorities therein and directed the Mandal Revenue Officer to decide certain issues. Pursuant to the said order, the Mandal Revenue Officer issued Form No.1 notice dated 13.02.2009 directing the petitioner to submit explanation to substantiate his claim and he submitted a detailed representation on 20.04.2009 but the Mandal Revenue Officer failed to take any action. It is also submitted by the petitioner that as evident from the record and the orders of this Court the writ petitioners therein are enjoying the land and the Sub Registrar addressed a letter in the year 1991 to which the Revenue Divisional Officer and the Mandal Revenue Officer submitted no objection and permitted the Sub Registrar to entertain the documents. However, in order to harass the petitioner, the 4th respondent, Mandal Revenue Officer, directed the 5th respondent, Village Administrative Officer, telephonically to lodge a report against the petitioner. Accordingly, the 5th respondent lodged a report for which, the petitioner also lodged a counter report against the respondents 4 and 5 before the Station House Officer, who failed to take any action against the respondents 4 and 5. Hence, the present writ petition. The learned Government Pleader, based on the written statement submitted by the 3rd respondent, submitted that a criminal case is registered against the petitioner in Cr.No.300 of 2009 under Sections 188 and 447 IPC and the case is under investigation. He also submitted that the petitioner sent a petition dated 09.06.2009 stating that the 3rd and 4th respondents have trespassed in the land of the petitioner bearing Survey No.197 of Nadergul Village and requested to take necessary action. To take necessary action on the petition of the petitioner, during the course of enquiry, it is revealed that as per the orders passed by this Court in W.P. No.24130 of 1996 dated 09.04.2008, as per the directions of the official respondents, the 5th respondent visited the land on 02.03.2009 to 04.06.2009 and the petitioner did not allow him to enter into the said land to inspect the land. Further the petitioner engaged one JCB and changed the shape of the land and installed board as Anand Nagar, Raju Associates. It is also submitted by the learned Government Pleader that the petitioner to escape from the liability in Cr.No.300 of 2009 he filed the present writ petition and to divert the mind of the investigation agency. Eventually, it is submitted that no cognizance offence is established against the official respondents 4 and 5, therefore, no case is registered against them on the complaint of the petitioner. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the material on record. The main grievance of the petitioner is that though he lodged a complaint against the respondents 4 and 5, the 3rd respondent did not take any action for which, the learned Government pleader submitted that to comply with the order passed by this Court in W.P. No.24130 of 1996, on the instructions of higher officials, the 5th respondent visited the land where the petitioner did not allow him and no cognizance offence is established against the official respondents, therefore, no case is registered against the official respondents on the complaint lodged by the petitioner. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, I am of the view that to initiate action against the respondents 4 and 5, based on the complaint lodged by the petitioner, the police authorities have enquired into the matter and have come to the conclusion that no cognizance offence is established against the official respondents, therefore, no case is registered against them. In such a situation, it cannot be said that the Police authorities did not act on the complaint lodged by the petitioner. Therefore, prima facie, no case is made out in the complaint lodged by the petitioner and therefore, no case is registered. In view of the same, I do not see any justification to direct the respondents 1 to 3 as sought by the petitioner, and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, with the above observation, the writ petition is dismissed, at the threshold. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________________ JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH Date: 22-09-2009 LSK/IVD