The Hon’ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy Writ Petition No.6323 of 2010 Dated 22nd March, 2010 Between: G.Ramakrishnam Raju …Petitioner And 1.The Station House Officer, Rayadurg Police Station, Rayadurg, Cyberabad Commissionerate, Gachibowli, Hyderabad and 3 others. …Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr.V.Sree Ranga Rao Counsel for Respondent No.1: AGP for Home Counsel for Respondent Nos.2 to 4: ---- The Court made the following: This Court made the following: Order:- This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to direct the respondents not to interfere with the petitioner’s land in Survey Nos.69 and 70 in Plot Nos.223 and 122 of Gachibowli Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. I have heard Sri V.Sree Ranga Rao, learned Counsel for the petitioner, and perused the record. The petitioner pleaded that there is a dispute in respect of Ac.2-12 guntas of land out of Ac.9-09 guntas in Survey Nos.69 and 70 of Gachibowli Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, between himself and respondent Nos.2 to 4; that the petitioner purchased the above land from the legal heirs of late Raghavaiah through an agreement of sale-cum-General Power of Attorney on 18-05-2007; that as the legal heirs of late Raghavaiah are interfering with his possession, he lodged a complaint before respondent No.1 apart from filing O.S.No.2435 of 2008 in the Court of the VII Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District, for permanent injunction and that the learned VII Additional Senior Civil Judge decreed the said suit on 28th July, 2009. The petitioner further pleaded that respondent Nos.2 to 4 approached respondent No.1 and against the alleged illegal action of respondent No.1, the petitioner lodged a complaint before the Commissioner of Police. The petitioner, therefore, sought for the abovementioned relief. From a careful perusal of the averments contained in the affidavit, it is evident that the petitioner has not made specific allegations against respondent No.1. He has not stated as to the nature of the action taken by respondent No.1 in order to term the same as illegal. The petitioner filed copies of representations, dated 12-11- 2009, said to have been made to the Inspector of Police, Raidurg Police Station, Deputy Commissioner of Police, Cyberabad, and the Commissioner of Police, Cyberabad, wherein he has not raised a whisper against the illegal interference or action on the part of respondent No.1. For the first time, in this Writ Petition, the petitioner has imputed “illegal action” to respondent No.1. In my opinion, this Writ Petition cannot be entertained on the basis of such vague and unsubstantiated allegations of alleged interference by respondent No.1. If respondent No.1 had interfered in civil disputes, the petitioner should have specifically stated the same in his representations made to the abovementioned authorities, apart from raising a categorical plea in the affidavit. Therefore, I am not inclined to entertain this Writ Petition. The Writ Petition is therefore dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to approach the Commissioner of Police, Cyberabad, with a specific grievance against respondent No.1. On such representation being made, the Commissioner of Police, Cyberabad, shall consider the same and act according to law. As a sequel to dismissal of the Writ Petition, WPMP.No.8159 of 2010, filed by the petitioner for interim relief, is disposed of as infructuous. --------------------------------- C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J Date: 22-3-2010 lur