THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJU CRIMINAL PETITION No.4950 of 2009 BETWEEEN: 1. Mr. K.Ashok Kumar, S/o. Late K.Anjaiah & another. … Petitioners AND 1. The State of A.P. & another. … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.4950 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioners 1 and 2/A1 and A4 are accused of offences punishable under Sections 447 and 427 I.P.C. in Crime No.107 of 2009 of Narsingi Police Station of Cyberabad. Subject matter of the dispute in this case is Ac.1.36gts in S.No.84(part) of Kokapet village, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. It is alleged that the 2nd respondent/defacto complainant is holding the said land and it is bounded by compound wall with gates and there are three servant quarters and a big house for water storage and that all the accused along with 15 to 20 others barged into the land and demolished his compound wall, servant quarters and water storage house at about 2:00 AM on 04.05.2009 and took away the gates. 2. It is contended by the petitioners’ counsel that total extent of land in S.No.84 is Ac.8.10 gts out of which A1 purchased Ac.4.11gts and his wife Rajitha purchased Ac.3.39gts and that they made the said purchases after returning from U.S.A. (United States of America) and that previously when Tahsildar and his subordinates of Rajendranagar Mandal demolished compound wall and also removed property at borewell in the land, A1 gave telegram to the District Collector on 30.04.2009 and also filed W.P.No.9470 of 2009 in this Court against the Tahsildar and that this Court in W.P.M.P.No.12362 of 2009 gave interim direction in that writ petition by order dated 01.05.2009 directing the Tahsildar not to interfere with possession of the 1st petitioner and his wife in respect of land in Ac.8.10 gts in S.No.84 of Kokapet village including further demolition of the compound wall around the said property pending disposal of the writ petition. It is stated that the said writ petition is pending in this Court. Therefore, it is contended by the petitioners’ counsel that there is no question of the 2nd respondent-de facto complainant being in possession of any portion of the land in S.No.84 much less the 2nd respondent constructing compound wall etc. therein and the petitioners demolishing the same. On the other hand, the 2nd respondent’s counsel contended that he filed W.P.No.6819 of 2009 in this Court against the Revenue authorities as well as A1 and his wife on the ground that A1 and his wife were making illegal constructions in S.No.891 and obstructing passage to his land of 38 gts in S.No.84(part). This Court by order dated 01.04.2009 dismissed W.P.No.6819 of 2009 observing that the 2nd respondent herein is not claiming any right over the land on which A1 and his wife were making constructions and that it is for the affected parties to initiate steps against them and that as long as the 2nd respondent herein does not make any claim vis- à-vis the land over which A1 and his wife are said to be making constructions, no relief can be granted in the writ petition. 3. The 2nd respondent is not a party to W.P.No.9470 of 2009 filed by A1 and his wife against the Tahsildar. From the above material and respective contentions of both the parties, it is evident that there is dispute relating to title in respect of the land in S.No.84 and it is stated to be pending before the Revenue authorities. Insofar as the present FIR is concerned, it is the 2nd respondent case that the petitioners and others trespassed into the land of Ac.1.36gts in S.No.84(part). It is contended by the petitioners’ counsel placing reliance on Gorige Pentaiah Vs. State of A.P.[1] of the supreme Court that there is no allegation in the report given by the 2nd respondent that he is in possession of the disputed land and that in the absence of such allegation and in view of the previous litigation between A1 and his wife on one hand and the Revenue authorities on the other hand, allegations in the report are totally false and frivolous. 4. The report given by the 2nd respondent reads that he was holding the land and that the accused and others barged into the land. The said allegations are nothing but to the effect that the 2nd respondent is in possession of the said land and the accused and others trespassed into the land. Holding a land is nothing short of possession of the land. Therefore, Gorige Pentaiah (1 supra) has no application to facts of this case. 5. Having regard to the allegation of demolition of compound wall, servant quarters and water storage house in the land in question and taking away of gates, it cannot be said that the 2nd respondent has come up with a false or frivolous report against the petitioners. It is for the Investigating Officer to find out whether there was any compound wall for the land of Ac.1.36gts and whether there were any servant quarters or water storage house and whether they were all demolished. Having regard to the specific allegations made in the report against the petitioners, I am of the opinion that this is not a fit case to quash FIR at its threshold. 6. In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. _____________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J Dated: 17.03.2011 ysk THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJUL CRIMINAL PETITION No.4950 of 2009 DATED: 17.03.2011 ysk [1] 2009(2) ALT (Crl.) 249 (SC)