HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO WRIT PETITION No. 26822 OF 2008 DATED 18TH OCTOBER, 2014.
BETWEEN Smt. P.Sailaja ….Petitioner And The Circle Inspector, Shamshabad Police Station, Shamshabad, Cyberabad Commissionerate, and ors.
…..Respondenst.
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO WRIT PETITION No. 26822 OF 2008
ORDER:
Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for the respondents 1 and 2.
This Writ Petition was filed challenging the action of respondents 1 and 2 in not acting on the complaint given by the petitioner on 04.05.2008 to prevent respondents 3 and 4 in trying to criminally trespass and grab the land admeasuring 285 square yards in Plot No. 175 of Brindavan Colony, Shamshabad village and Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, belonging to the petitioner.
This Court by order dated 02.07.2009 while considering the interim order dated 10.12.2008 and vacate stay petition, held as follows:
“ The Writ Petitioner claimed that Shamshabad Gram Panchayat allotted Plot Nos. 173 to 175 to her vendor in lieu of certain properties belonging to his mother having been taken over by the Gram Panchayat. She further claimed that she purchased Plot No. 175 admeasuring 285 square yards from her vendor. It is her case that respondent Nos. 3 and 4 filed a suit for injunction on the ground that the property transferred to the petitioner’s vendor was earmarked for park. According to the writ petitioner, the injunction application filed by respondent Nos. 3 and 4 was dismissed. She filed the present writ petition feeling aggrieved by the inaction of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in giving police protection for her property. Admittedly, the writ petitioner’s right over the property has not been declared by a Civil Court of competent jurisdiction. She neither obtained a decree nor an order from the Civil Court for protecting her possession. Therefore, police protection to protect her property cannot be sought for in this WPMP as held by the Supreme Court in P.R. Muralidharan and others Vs. Swami Dharmananda Theertha Padar and others {(2006) 4 SCC 501}. Hence I do not find balance of convenience to continue the interim order.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner, however, submitted that there is a life threat to the petitioner from respondent Nos. 3 and 4. If that be the case, the petitioner is given liberty to file a complaint before respondent No.2 against respondent Nos. 3 and 4. If such a complaint is received, respondent No.2 shall take appropriate action in accordance with law.”
In view of the aforesaid order, no further orders are required to be passed in the present Writ Petition.
The Writ Petition is accordingly closed. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending consideration if any in the Writ Petition shall stand closed. No order as to costs.
JUSTICE A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO DATED 18TH OCTOBER, 2014.
Msnro