HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH Dated 12-10-2009 WRIT PETITION No.9055 OF 2009 Between: G. Yadaiah and another. …Petitioner. And: 1. Government of Andhra Pradesh, represented by Commissioner of Police, Cyberabad and others. ……Respondents. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION No.9055 OF 2009 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed seeking to declare the action of the respondents in threatening to evict the petitioners from the property in Plot Nos.8 and 9 in Survey No.374 admeasuring 600 Sq.yds situated at Attapur Village, Rajendra Nagar Municipality, Ranga Reddy District, in spite of orders in I.A.No.2782 of 2008 in O.S.No.952/2008 dated 25-09-2008 passed by the learned 1st Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, as illegal and arbitrary. The case of the Writ Petitioner, in brief, is as follows: 2nd Petitioner is the brother of the 1st petitioner. Petitioner and his brother are owners of the plot Nos.8 and 9 in Survey No.374 admeasuring 600 sq.yds. situated at Attapur Village, Rajendra Nagar Municipality, Ranga Reddy District. The father of the petitioners late G.Hanumanthu purchased the plots in question from his Vendor and obtained permission from the Rajendra Nagar Municipaity to construct house. After his death, Writ Petitiners became the absolute owners and possessors of the property in question and they partitioned the same with equal shares. The 3rd respondent is the owner of Plot No.7 admeasuring 140 sq.yds. He being a retired Government Employee and having high influence, started creating problems and trying to grab the land and lodged a complaint on 23-07-2008 against the 1st petitioner and the same was registered as a case in Cr.No.852 of 2008 for the offence under Sections 448 and 427 I.P.C. and the 1st petitioner was taken into custody by the police and subsequently, he was released on bail. As the matter stood thus, the petitioner filed a suit in O.S.No.952 of 2008 along with I.A.No.2782 of 2008 on the file of the learned 1st Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District seeking injunction against the 3rd respondent. On 25-09-2008, the learned Judge granted ad interim injunction and the same is still in existence. The petitioner filed a complaint and the same was registered as a case in Cr.No.1114 of 2008 of Rajendra Nagar Police Station and on 11-4-2009, Rajendra Nagar Police issued a notice in Form No.96 stating that his complaint is false. The 3rd respondent has filed similar complaint and the police have filed a charge sheet and registered the crime against the petitioner. But, when the petitioners made a complaint, the 2nd respondent-Police has filed a report stating that it is false and it is civil in nature. At the instance of the 3rd respondent, the 2nd respondent- Police is trying to harass the petitioners and in spite of the injunction granted by the learned Judge, the respondents 2 and 3 are trying to dispossess the petitioners and threatening with dire consequences. On 11-4-2008 when the petitioners approached the 2nd respondent-Police with an application, he refused to receive the same. Hence, the Writ Petition. In the Counter-affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent -Police, the 2nd respondent while denying all the allegations mentioned in the affidavit filed by the petitioners in support of the Writ Petition, has submitted that the investigation reveals that there is a civil dispute between the petitioners and the 3rd respondent and the petitioners filed a suit for injunction against the 3rd respondent in O.S.No.952 of 2008 on the file of the learned 1st Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District. Since the matter is of civil in nature, this respondent-Police issued a notice in Form No.96 dated 11-4-2009 stating that the complaint is civil in nature. This respondent-Police is not interfering or trying to evict the petitioners from his property. Hence, he seeks to dismiss the Writ Petition. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned Government Pleader for Home. Perused the material available on record. The main grievance of the Writ petitioner is that at the instance of the 3rd respondent, the 2nd respondent-Police is trying to harass him and in spite of the injunction granted by the learned Judge, the respondents 2 and 3 are trying to dispossess him from the property and threatening with dire consequences. On the other hand, the learned Government pleader has submitted that the investigation done by the 2nd respondent reveals that the dispute is civil in nature and this respondent- Police is not interfering or trying to evict the petitioners from property in question. Hence, he seeks to dismiss the Writ Petition. To substantiate the case of the petitioner, no material has been placed before this Court by the petitioner except making bald averments. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and submission made in the Counter by the 1st respondent to the effect that he is not interfering with the matters of the petitioner or trying to evict them from the property, I do not find any reason to grant any relief as sought for in this Writ Petition and hence, the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. ______________________ Justice G.CHANDRAIAH Dated 12-10-2009 Dvs HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION No.9055 OF 2009 Dated 12-10-2009