Karakavalasa Kondalarao, Gpa Holder Of His Son-In-Law v. The State Of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.By Its Principal Secretary

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.32531 OF 2017 Dated:22.09.2017 Between:

Karakavalasa Kondalarao, GPA Holder of his son-in-law Regulavalasa Raj Srinivas, S/o.Rama Rao, Door No.1-4-224, New Maruthinagar, Kothapeta, Hyderabad, Ranga reddy District .. Petitioner And The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep., by its Principal Secretary to the Government, Revenue, Andhra Pradesh, Amaravathi, And others .. Respondents The Court made the following:

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.32531 OF 2017 ORDER:

Heard.

2.

Petitioner alleges that he is the owner of land to an extent of Acs.10.00 in Survey No.20/2 A1 of Malakondapuram Village, Pamuru Revenue Mandal, Prakasam District. While so, a false claim was filed by the 5th respondent against the petitioner. Aggrieved by the said false claim, petitioner filed O.S.No.164 of 2014 pending in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Kandukuru, for declaration of title and interest over the property. While so, the 5th respondent trespassed into the land of the petitioner and damaged the eucalyptus garden, cut the trees and carried away the same. On a complaint filed by the petitioner before the D.S.P. Kandukuru, Prakasam District, crime No.23 of 2017 was registered. However, the same was referred as a case in civil nature (Non-cognizable). In the course of investigation, a report was sought from Tahsildar and the Tahsildar submitted report on 17.03.2017. This Writ Petition is filed challenging the said report and seeking a direction to cancel the said report and to re-enquire into the matter after giving notice to the petitioner. 3.

As seen from the report of the Tahsildar, it is a communication from Tahsildar to the Sub-Inspector of Police in response to the request made by him, as a consequence of the investigation undertaken by him in Crime No.23 of 2017. It is an internal correspondence between two officers of the State. No such writ would lie against internal correspondence. If the petitioner

has any grievance with regard to closing of the crime, alternative remedy is available to him in criminal law. Without availing the said remedy, petitioner filed this Writ Petition challenging the internal correspondence between two officers of the State. Hence, this Court is not inclined to entertain the Writ Petition. It is for the person to establish his right in appropriate forum or work out his remedies against the action of the police authorities in closing his complaint, but he cannot ask for re-enquiry into the matter in the guise of challenging the internal correspondence between two officers of the State.

4.

The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed giving liberty to the petitioner to work out his remedies as available to him in law. There shall be no order as to costs.

Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.

____________________ P. NAVEEN RAO, J Date:22.09.2017 KH