IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 26792 of 2008 Between: Chintabathina Souri Babu S/o. Gabriel R/o. Oleru (V), Bhattiprole (M), Guntur Dist. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 M.V. Krishna Rao Repalle Sub Division Bhattiprole, Guntur District. 2 The Asst. Executive Engineer, R & B Repalle Sub Division Bhattiprole, Guntur District. 3 The Superintending Engineer R & B Dept. Guntur. 4 The District Collector Guntur. 5 The Deputy Superintendent of Police Bapatla, Guntur Dist. 6 The Station House Officer Bhattiprole, Guntur Dist. .....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 1st respondent is illegal, improper, unjust, who behaved harshly abusing the petitioner and his wife and destroyed their house, household articles and cycle shop have up lost a tune of Rs. 70,000/-, at that time the petitioner’s wife carrying 9th month pregnancy, the respondent No. 1 act against the petitioner and his wife very cruel in nature and against the Civil Rights Guaranteed by the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents 3 to 6 to recognize the petitioner as a genuine and peaceful possessors and resident of the above mentioned house, i.e., a pucca house build in the poramboke land in the road leading Malapalli from Sivalayam and pacify petitioner lost properties and earnings. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.K.GANI REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR ROADS & BUILDINGS The Court made the following ORDER: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA Writ Petition No. 26792 of 2008 Order: The petitioner claims that he belongs to schedule caste community and is a resident of Oleru village, Bhattiprole Mandal, Guntur District. He states that he is residing in a pucca house built in the poramboke land and that he has been paying the house tax regularly. The petitioner states that on 04.07.2008 at about 7.30 pm, the first respondent along with his staff, illegally entered into his premises and demolished the house without any prior notice. He further states that the first respondent abused him in the name of his caste and used unparliamentary language against him and his wife, and destroyed property worth Rs.70,000/-. He made complaint to the third respondent to take action against the first respondent and his officials, in vain. Hence, he filed the present writ petition, praying to recognize him as owner of the land and direct the first respondent to reconstruct the demolished building, and also direct the police to take action against the first respondent and his officials. In response to the notice ordered by this Court, the second respondent filed counter on behalf of respondents 1 to 3 denying the writ averments. Likewise, the sixth respondent also filed counter denying the averments made by the petitioner in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. The second respondent in his counter stated that the petitioner and five others were in unauthorized occupation of the property belonging to R & B Department. The petitioner erected a shed on the flank of the road leading from Shivalayam to Malapally and has been running a cycle shop. Immediately on coming to know about the illegal occupation, they issued notice dated 05.04.2008 for removal of the encroachment within 30 days, and as the petitioner refused to receive the same, they pasted the same on the premises on 12.05.2008. He submitted that the petitioner and others by themselves removed their belongings and vacated the premises. He denied that he abused the petitioner in the name of his caste and used unparliamentary language. He submitted that the complaints lodged by the petitioner against him to the Superintendent of Police, Guntur and State Commission for SCs and STs were investigated and reports were also submitted by the police stating them to be false. Hence, he prayed that the writ petition be dismissed. The sixth respondent in his counter reiterated the stand taken by respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and submitted that the petitioner encroached the property of R & B. He submitted that himself as also the Superintendent of Police, enquired into the complaint lodged by the petitioner to them as also to the State Commission for SCs and STs, which has forwarded the complaint of the petitioner for investigation. During investigation, it came to light that it is not the first respondent, but the petitioner who threatened respondent No.2 and his officials with dire consequences and threatened to implicate them in false SC/ST cases. The investigation report has already been sent to the State Commission for SCs and STs. As the complaints filed by the petitioner were false, no further action was taken. He thus prayed that the writ petition be dismissed. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for R & B for respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and the learned Government Pleader for Home for respondent Nos. 4 to 6. Though the petitioner contends that the first respondent and his officials demolished the house of the petitioner, the same is disputed by the respondents. It is their case that the petitioner was in illegal occupation of the property belonging to the R & B, which issued notice to the petitioner and others calling upon them to remove the encroachments within 30 days. It is their further case that the petitioner and others by themselves removed their belongings and vacated the premises. The contention of the petitioner that he was abused, is denied by all the respondents. In fact, it is the specific case of the police that the complaint lodged by the petitioner against the first respondent to them as also before the State Commission for SCs and STs was investigated by the Superintendent of Police, who having investigated the said complaints, filed report stating that it is not the first respondent, but the petitioner, who has threatened the first respondent and his officials with dire consequences, including foisting of false SC/ST complaint. That the Superintendent of Police has already submitted report to the State Commission for SCs/STs. It is their further case that since the complaints lodged by the petitioner were found to be false, no further action was taken in the matter. Since the petitioner is said to be in encroachment of R & B land, no exception can be taken to the action of the first respondent in evicting the petitioner from the land, and more so when he has not filed any material to show that he is the owner of the land, and further since the complaints lodged by the petitioner, upon investigation were said to have been found to be false, no exception can be taken to the action of the police, in not proceeding further in the matter, particularly against the first respondent, who being the custodian of R & B property, has rightly directed removal of the encroachments, said to have been made by the petitioner and similarly placed persons. There is no merit in the writ petition, and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ___________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. Date: 04.02.2009 VGB