IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.23131 of 2007 Between: Thummala Venkateswara Rao S/o.Subbaiah, Gandugulapally Village, Dammapeta Mandal, Khammam District. ...PETITIONER AND 1. The Station House Officer, Dammapeta P.S., Khammam District. 2. The Tahsildar, Dammapeta Mandal, Khammam District. ...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 writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the 1st respondent in not implementing the orders of the 2nd respondent vide PRocs.Rc.No.B/4148/2007 dated 15.10.2007 as illegal, arbitrary, violative of Articles 21 & 300-A of Constitution of India and consequently direct the 1st respondent to give necessary protection to the lands of an extent of ac.13.00 in Sy.no.50,51,52 and 65/A of Duradapaud in Naidupeta revenue village, Dammapet Mandal, Khammam District. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.S.APPADHARA REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.23131 of 2007 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed for a Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the first respondent in not implementing the orders of the second respondent vide his proceedings in Rc.No.B/4148/2007 dated 15.10.2007 as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the first respondent to give necessary protection to the lands of an extent of Acs.13.00 situated in Survey Nos.50, 51, 52 and 65/A of Duradapadu in Naidupeta Revenue Village, Dammapeta Mandal of Khammam District. The petitioner claims to be the absolute owner of the above mentioned property. He alleges that when he cut the cashew garden and ploughed the land for raising maize crop, some locally influenced persons, along with their henchmen, tried to interfere and obstruct him from carrying out the agricultural operations. The petitioner allegedly approached the second respondent seeking protection by producing all the documentary evidence relating to the petitioner’s ownership over the land. The second respondent, after verifying the evidence relating to title, issued proceedings on 15.10.2007 addressed to the first respondent, wherein he requested the latter to give necessary protection to the petitioner’s land. Heard Sri S.Appadhara Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home. Perused the record. Having carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel on either side, I am of the view that the prayer made in this Writ Petition cannot be granted. The petitioner’s grievance is that certain persons have been unlawfully interfering with the possession of his property and in spite of the request made by the second respondent; the first respondent is not giving protection to his property. The petitioner failed to plead that under any law the second respondent has the authority to direct the first respondent to give protection to enable him to enjoy his property. If the petitioner is unduly prevented by third parties without any lawful right, he is entitled to invoke the common law remedies such as filing a criminal complaint against them before the police concerned apart from approaching the Court of a competent jurisdiction by invoking the common law remedies available under the Civil Laws. The petitioner has not availed any of these remedies. Instead, he appeared to have invented a short circuit method by approaching the second respondent, who in turn readily obliged the petitioner and directed the first respondent to give police protection. In my considered view, the petitioner has not followed the due process of law in seeking support of the first respondent. Unless the petitioner takes recourse to the procedure established by law, the first respondent is not under an obligation to oblige him or for that mater any other private person in order to protect his private properties at all times. Given the State’s constraints on man power in the police department, it is not possible for the State to provide police security to every individual to enable him to enjoy his property, unless the State is directed so by a Court of competent jurisdiction. For the above mentioned reasons, the Writ Petition is dismissed. The petitioner is given liberty to avail appropriate remedies, both civil and criminal, against the persons who are allegedly interfering with his possession and enjoyment of the properties over which he is claiming title. _______________________ (C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J) 10th March 2008 RRB