ORDER
1. The relief sought for in this writ petition is to issue an order, direction or a writ more particularly one in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 3 i.e., the Commissioner of Police, Vijayawada Urban, Sub-Inspector of Police, 8th Town, Autonagar, Vijayawada and the Executive Magistrate-Mandal Revenue Officer, Vijayawada, to take appropriate action against the respondents 4 to 6 viz., K. Siva Raghavendra Prasad, 45 years, K. Siva Viihal Kumar, 40 years and K. Srinivasa Rao, 35 years, all are sons of Poornachandra Rao; after declaring the inaction of the respondents 1 to 3 as illegal, unjust, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of Constitution of India.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner Sree Kanakadurga Educational Society, represented by its Correspondent, P. Kanakadurga Prasad s/o Ramaswamy, established two colleges by name SGL Degree College and P.R.S.M. National Junior College in the year 1981 and 1982 respectively. The present strength of both the colleges is about 800 students, that both the colleges are aided and affiliated to Nagarjuna University. Originally the two colleges were located at Mogalrajapuram and in 1990, the Society entered into a written agreement of lease with one Smt. Komma Seelaravamma w/o PoomachandraRao, agreeing to pay a monthly rent of Rs.4750/- for the site and shifted the colleges to the site from Moghalrajapuram and was paying the rents regularly. In 1998, the original lessor, Smt. Seetaravamma expired and her sons viz., respondents 4 to 6 also accepted the rents without any protest and the colleges were being run in the same site, which is an extent of Ac.2.00.
3. While being so, on 23-5-1999 the respondents 4 to 6, without any manner of rights and without giving any notice or opportunity to the petitioner came to the college and high handcdly started demolishing the structures and when the petitioner questioned, they threatened Kirn with dire consequences and abused him in filthy language and created havoc in the locality and he entertained danger to his life. Therefore to prevent the illegal demolition of the sheds of the college, the petitioner rushed to the second respondent, SI of Police, 8th Town, Autonagar, Vijayawada, requesting him to give police protection to save the property of the college and to prevent breach of peace. But the second respondent did not came to his rescue. It is further alleged that the respondents 4 to 6 are socially, economically and politically influential and therefore, the Police Department is not helping hand to the petitioner. It is further alleged that the petitioner came to know that the entire episode was at the instance of one Ch. Vara Prasad, who is the President of Krishnaveni Residential College, Vijayawada, who offered higher lease to the respondents 4 to 6. It is further submitted that the second respondent has not attended to the complaint dated 23-5-1999. Ultimately on 24-5-1999 the respondents 4 to 6 have demolished the sheds of the college and they have taken away the records of the college. Therefore, he issued a telegram to the Director-General of Police, Hyderabad, even then the police did not take any action. On 26-5-1999 he again represented to the Commissioner of Police, Vijayawada, narrating the entire stateof affairs that took place on 23-5-1999 and requested him to take appropriate action against the respondents 4 to 6. On 3-6-1999 the petitioner again requested the Station House Officer, 8th Town, Autonagar, Vijayawada to take action against the respondents 4 to 6, giving specific names of the respondents 4 to 6 who illegally demolished and removed the entire records. Therefore, questioning the in action of the respondents 1 to 3, the present writ petition was filed to direct the respondents t to 3 to register crime and enquire into the matter.
4. When the matter came up for admission on 14-6-1999 this Court has issued notice to the second respondent returnable in ten days. In pursuance of the above said notice, the second respondent filed his counter affidavit, stating that there is no dispute with regard to the establishment of the colleges, in reply to the allegation that the respondents 4 to 6 went to the college and high handedly started demolishing the structures, he stated that during the enquiry it was disclosed that the college she belongs to the respondents 4 to 6 and in 1990 the petitioner took the site on lease for three years; that earlier to the establishment of colleges, there was poultry farm and sheds were constructed, that with the same structures the site was given to the petitioner and thus the shed and its material belong to the respondents 4 to 6. The lease expired in 1993 and since the institution was running without any written agreement, in the year 1997, the College Management gave a letter to the landlord stating that they are vacating the premises, but did not vacate and ran the colleges for another year and the rent was also not paid for which the respondents 4 to 6 filed cases against the petitioner. For the present academic year the College Management decided to shift the college to Bhavanipuram and gave their oral consent to the respondents 4 to 6 and shifted the college material and on 15-5-1999 a foundation stone was laid inthe site for pucca construction and to lease out the same to Krislmavcni Institution and as the sheds belong to the site owners, they have started removing the sheds from 20-5-1999 and on 23-5-1999 the petitioner visited the site and asked the respondents 4 to 6 to give the building material to erect new sheds in their now place, but that deal was not settled, and the entire happenings were witnessed by the Watchman of the Institution.
5. It is also stated by the second respondent in the counter affidavit that the allegation of the petitioner that the respondents 1 to 3 did not take any action on the representation made by him on 23-5-1999 is not correct. It is stated that the petitioner on 23-5-1999 at about 3-00 p.m. the petitioner submitted a report stating that some unauthorised persons who took taw into their hands forcibly entered into the college premises and started demolishing the sheds and properties of the college without mentioning the names. The above report was received by the Head Constable 393, who was the Station House Officer at that time, made a GD entry and gave receipt to the petitioner. As there were instructions from the superior officers not to interfere in civil disputes without any cognizable offence and without verification, he did not register a case. However, the Head Constable 393 and two other constables visited the site and found that six sheds were demolished and the material was placed in an orderly manner and the neighbours stated that since four days, the shed are being demolished by the respondents 4 to 6, as they belong to them. Thereafter, the Head Constable alongwith two constables returned and entered in the GD about the enquiry. Later the second respondent verified and found the enquiry made by the Head Constable was correct. On 3-6-1999 the petitioner gave a report to the Station House Officer, Patamata, by mentioning the specific names of the respondents 4 to 6 stating that therespondents 4 to 6 threatened him on 23-5-1999 and when he questioned about their high handedness, but he did not mention the names of any persons in the complaint dated 23-5-1999, tie further submitted that after enquiry, the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Division-II, gave an endorsement to registers case, the case was registered in Criminal No.85 of 1999 under Sections 447, 427 IPC at Patama Police Station and is under investigation. Me denied the allegation made by the petitioner in his affidavit that the respondents 1 to 3 have not discharged their duties when he made complaint to the police on 23-5-1999.
6. After hearing the Counsel for the petitioner and the Government Pleader, as is evident from the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner has entered into the site of the respondents 4 to 6 on the basis of lease agreement for a period of three years from 1990-93 on a monthly rent of Rs.4750/-. According to the enquiry made by the police, the lease was for a period of three years and the same expired and the college management gave consent that they will shift the college from the site of the respondents 4 to 6 to some other place. The enquiry conducted by the police shows that the site belongs to the respondents 4 to 6. It is further evident that the police have registered a case in Crl. No.85 of 1996 based on the complaint given by the petitioner. After expiry of the lease, in the year 1993, the petitioner was allowed to continue for further period of one year in the above site and as on the date of occurrence of the incident, he was not having any lease to continue in the site, The demolition of the building and snatching away of the records by the respondents 4 to 6 fall under civil disputes, which can not be decided in an extraordinary jurisdiction conferred under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution. It is a matter to be decided by a competent civil Court, which is having jurisdiction over the subject-matter of thewrit petition. In those circumstances, at the instance of the petitioner, the writ petition is not maintainable under Article 226 of Constitution of India. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs.