HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.RAMANA W.P. No. 2390 of 2009 O r d e r: The petitioner, namely Avatar Mehar Baba Charitable Trust, represented by its Chairman, states that one Mr. Kamisetty Gangadhar and another Mr. Alladi Srinivas, have purchased land in an extent of Acs. 1-24 guntas in Sy. No. 375 at Yellareddypet village and Mandal, Karimnagar District from its original Smt. Ambaripeta Laxmi, and developed the same into plots. That they donated an extent of 700 Sq. yds. to the Trust for construction of a Temple, and that when they went to lay the foundation for construction of the Temple, respondent No.4 obstructed. Therefore, he made representation dated 06.12.2008 followed by another representation dated 07.01.2009, requesting the Sub Divisional Police Officer, Karimnagar and Sub-Inspector of Police, to provide police protection for laying the foundation stone. As no police protection was provided, they filed writ petition in W.P. No. 554 of 2009, which by order dated 21.01.2009, was disposed of directing the police officials to consider the representations. The petitioner further states that they fixed 15.02.2009 for laying the foundation stone for construction of the Temple, and accordingly, approached the respondent-police officials by way of representation dated 25.01.2009 requesting them to consider their representations in terms of the orders dated 21.01.2009 passed by this Court in W.P. No. 554 of 2009 and provide police protection, and as no action thereon, was taken, they filed the present writ petition. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 3 submitted that the petitioner with the aid of police, is seeking to grab the land belonging to private parties, which cannot be permitted, and therefore, the official respondents having considered the representations of the petitioner in terms of the order of this Court, refused to grant police protection to the petitioner, and more so when there is no break down of any law and order. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.4 submitted that respondent No.4 is the owner of the land. He contended that Smt. Ambaripeta Laxmi, who is said to have sold the land to Mr. Kamisetty Gangadhar and another Mr. Alladi Srinivas, and from whom the petitioner claims to have derived title to the land, is not the owner of the land, and as such, the petitioner cannot claim to have derived any title to the property therefrom. Since the petitioner by taking police protection, is seeking to encroach the land belonging to private persons, respondent-police officials have rightly refused to grant police protection, and no interference is called for therewith. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home for respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and the learned counsel for respondent No.4. The claim of the petitioner to the property in question is on the strength of the donation said to have been made by one Mr. Kamisetty Gangadhar and another Mr. Alladi Srinivas, for construction of a Temple. The said persons claim to have purchased the same from one Ambaripeta Laxmi. Admittedly, Ambaripeta Laxmi, filed writ petition in W.P. No. 7158 of 2006 against the revenue officials and her brother Sri Sangula Laxman, respondent No.4 herein, contending that her brother in collusion with the revenue officials is trying to manipulate the revenue records. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court by order dated 13.04.2006 directing respondent No.1 therein to cause an enquiry into the representation made by Ambaripeta Laxmi and further directed respondent Nos. 2 and 3 therein not to alter the entries in the record of rights without conducting any enquiry and without issuing any notice to Ambaripeta Laxmi. While so, respondent No.4, brother of Ambaripeta Laxmi filed writ petition in W.P. No. 7719 of 2007 questioning the action of the revenue officials in not granting him pattadar pass books on the basis of enquiry report dated 27.05.2006 submitted by the Mandal Revenue Officer to the Revenue Divisional Officer, on the ground that the matter is sub judice before the Court. In the said report, the Mandal Revenue Officer found and reported that the name of Ambaripeta Laxmi was wrongly recorded in the record of rights. However, considering the fact that enquiry was already conducted by the Mandal Revenue Officer and under the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattedar Pass Books Act, 1971, the Mandal Revenue Officer (Tahsildar), is the authority competent to issue pattadar pass books, directed the Mandal Revenue Officer to follow the necessary procedure for grant of pattadar pass books to respondent No.4. It appears that there are disputes between respondent No.4 and Smt. Ambaripeta Laxmi, the vendor of Mr. K. Gangadhar and another who are said to have donated the land to the petitioner. Mr. K. Gangadhar, who claimed to have purchased the land from Smt. Ambnaripeta Laxmi and who is said to have donated the land in question to the petitioner, filed writ petition in W.P. No. 27696 of 2007 aggrieved by the action of the revenue officials in not her consider his representation for mutation of entries in the revenue records and for issuance of patta pass books and titled deeds based on the registered sale deed dated 24.04.2006. The said writ petition, by order dated 31.12.2007, was disposed of by this Court recording the submission of the learned Government Pleader, and giving liberty to the petitioner to work out his remedies, as follows: Learned Government Pleader submits that the said representation has already been considered and disposed of vide memo, dated 22-11-2007 in Ref. No.B/244/2006 holding that as per the revenue records the vendor of the petitioner, namely, Smt. Ambaripeta Laxmi, is not the title holder of the land in Sy. No. 375 situated at Yellareddipet village and Mandal, Karimnagar District. Hence, the request of the petitioner to mutate her name in the revenue records is rejected. Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed with a liberty to work out the remedies available to the petitioner. No order as to costs. Mr. Gangadhar, after dismissal of the above writ petition, filed another writ petition in W.P. No. 8899 of 2008 seeking police protection. This Court by order dated 22.04.2008, having taken note of the fact that similar writ petitions in W.P. No. 8388 of 2006 and W.P. No. 22570 of 2007 were dismissed, refused to grant any relief, and dismissed the same, holding as follows: The present writ petition is filed for the same relief, which was claimed in the previous two writ petitions. I have perused the endorsement made by respondent No.1 on 03.04.2008. In my considered view, the said endorsement is in conformity with the law. The facts narrated above clearly show that there is a civil dispute between the petitioner and respondent No.3 in respect of the immovable property. If the petitioner asserts his right over the said property and claims that respondent No. 3 is not entitled in law to interfere with his possession, he is entitled to approach a competent Court of law for appropriate relief against respondent No.3. Unless the petitioner’s title over the said property is declared by the civil court of competent jurisdiction and necessary orders are passed to protect his possession, it is no part of the duty of the police to deploy the police force at the instance of a citizen merely at his request and on the allegation that some third parties are seeking to disturb his possession or prevent him from enjoying his property rights. If the police are conferred with such a power, that would destroy the whole concept of rule of law. The petitioner has not given any reason whatsoever for not asserting his right over the immovable property in a competent Court of law. Instead, he has been repeatedly approaching the police to protect his possession. As observed in Writ Petition No. 8388 of 2006, the petitioner cannot seek a permanent police protection for his lands. From the above order, it is clear that this Court refused to grant police protection to Mr. Gangadhar, who is said to have donated the land in question to the petitioner, and directed him to get declaration to that effect that he is the owner of the property. When the principal, who is said to have donated the property to the petitioner, could not get any police protection, I fail to understand how the petitioner can seek police protection for protection of the land in question, and more so when it is the case of the official respondents as well as respondent No.4 that the petitioner with the help of police protection is trying to grab the land belonging to respondent No.4. In that view of the matter, no exception can be taken to the action of the official respondents in refusing to grant police protection to the petitioner. There is no merit in the writ petition, and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs. _______________ N.V.RAMANA,J Dated: 25th February, 2009 KSR