IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 12952 of 2008 Between: Mohammed Jahangir Pasha S/o. Mohd. Razzack G.P.A. Holder of Mohmood Ali aged 38 yrs, Occ: Business R/o. 19-2- 48/2/A M.T. Colony, Jahanuma, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Secretary, Department of Home, Hyderabad. 2 The Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad. 3 The Deputy Commissioner of Police, South Zone, Hyderabad. 4 The Sub Inspector of Police, Falaknuma Police Station, Hyderabad. 5 Mohd. Jabbar S/o,. Not known R/o. 18-2-474/5/A/9, Falaknuma Bridge, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS 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 an appropriate writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in dispossessing petitioner herein from his house property bearing No. 19-3- 294/69/5/1, 180 Falaknuma, Hyderabad without looking into the documents and without referring the matter U/s. 145 of Cr.P.C. to the concerned Executive Magistrate as arbitrary illegal, unjust apart from being violative of Article 21 of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to restore the petitioners possession in the above house property and pass such other orders. Counsel for the Petitioner:MOHD.ASIFUDDIN Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4: GP FOR HOME Counsel for the respondent No.5: none The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO :12952 of 2008 ORDER: The writ petition is mis-conceived. Petitioner seeks a declaration that the action of the respondents in dispossessing him from his house bearing Municipal No. 19-3-294/69/5/1, 180, Falaknuma, Hyderabad, without examining the petitioner’s title documents and without referring the matter under Section 145 of the Code of Civil Procedure to the concerned Magistrate is arbitrary and illegal. Petitioner claims to be the G.P.A. holder of Mahamood Ali who is claimed to be the owner and in possession of the afore-described property in Plot Nos. 41 and 42 in an extent of 300 sq. yards. When the 5th respondent tried to interfere with the property, petitioner filed O.S. No. 3442 of 2007 before the VIII Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad for injunctive relief. Interim injunction was granted on 29.6.2007 in I.A. No. 1294 of 2007 restraining the 5th respondent and his men from interfering with the petitioner’s possession and enjoyment of the property. According to the petitioner, during the currency of the said injunction order and to circumvent the same, the 5th respondent instigated one Smt. Nawazunnisa Begum to prefer a complaint against the petitioner and three others alleging that they entered her premises and broke open the lock. Accordingly, Crime No.109 of 2007 was registered alleging offences under Section 454,448,427,506 read with 34 I.P.C. Petitioner states that the house number in respect of which Nawazunnisa Begum had lodged the complaint is a different one from the house number of the petitioner. Petitioner alleges that on 1.7.2007 the 4th respondent at the instance of the 5th respondent drove out the petitioner from his premises. The petitioner thereupon filed I.A. No. 1437 of 2007 for restoration of possession under Section 151 read with 144 of C.P.C. The said I.A. was dismissed on the ground that the petitioner failed to comply with the provisions of Section 80 C.P.C. In the circumstances, the petitioner is before this court. The writ petitioner does not state which particular Officer had unlawfully dispossessed him, except generally stating and impleading the Sub-Inspector of Police, Falaknuma Police station. The I.A. filed by the petitioner under Section 144 C.P.C. for restitution of possession is stated to have been dismissed for want of compliance with the provisions of Section 80 C.P.C. The petitioner has not complained to any higher authority about the unlawful action/conduct of any member of the Police Force. If the petitioner is aggrieved that an officer of the Police Department has committed an offence, the petitioner has also a remedy of preferring a private complaint before the jurisdictional Magistrate. In the context of regnant disputes regarding property between the petitioner and the 5th respondent and as pleaded by the petitioner with one Smt. Nawazunnisa Begum, this Court is not inclined to consider the complaint of the petitioner. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to pursue appropriate alternative remedies by way of a private complaint or before the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction. No order as to costs. ____________________ GODA RAGHURAM,J DATE: 10th July, 2008 pnb