IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 20505 of 2008 Between: Palagiri Venkata Subba Reddy S/o.P.Yella Reddy R/oThummalur village pendlimarri Mandal Kadapa District ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Mandal Executive Magistrate,and Tahasildar Pendlimarri, Kadapa District 2 The Station House officer,Pendlimarri Police station Kadapa District .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 to issue a writ order or direction particularly writ of mandamus directing the respondents not to interfere with possession and enjoyment of S.No.873/1 an extent of Ac.4.00 of agricultural land situated in Thummalur village,Pendlimarri Mandal,kadapa District declaring theprohibitory order issued in MC.No.10 of 2008 by the Mandla Executive Magistrate and Tahasildar, Pendlimarri dated 28.7.2008 as null and void and not binding on petitioner and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.M.N.NARASIMHA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI W.P.No.20505 of 2008 ORDER The writ petition is ﬁled seeking a declaration that the prohibitory order issued by the 1st respondent-Mandal Executive Magistrate and Tahasildar dated.28-07-2008 in M.C.No.10 of 2008 directing that no person should enter in Sy.No.873/1 of Thummalur village as arbitrary and illegal. The petitioner also seeks a direction to the respondents not to interfere with his possession and enjoyment of Ac.4.00 of agricultural land situated in Sy.No.873/1 of Thummalur Village. In the aﬃdavit ﬁled in support of the writ petition, it is stated that the petitioner is in possession and enjoyment of Ac.4.00 of land situated in Sy.No.873/1 of Thummalur village which forms part of Sy.No.873 classiﬁed as river poramboke covering more than Ac.200.00. The 1st respondent in exercise of the powers under Sec.145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 promulgated a prohibitory order in M.C.No.10 of 2008 dated.28-07-2008 to the eﬀect that no person shall enter in Sy.No.873/1 of Thummalur village and no person shall cultivate or make use of river water through pumps etc., without permission of irrigation and revenue authorities. The said order is challenged in this writ petition primarily on the ground that there was no prior notice to the petitioner. It is also contended that since the petitioner has nothing to do with the criminal cases in between the respondent Nos.1 and 2 who are shown as parties to M.C.No.10 of 2008, the impugned order preventing the petitioner from entering his land and attend to the agricultural work in the ﬁeld wherein there is a standing crop of groundnut is arbitrary and illegal. It is alleged that though the petitioner got issued legal notices dated.02-08-2008 and 14-08-2008 requesting the 1st respondent to permit him to cultivate his land, there was no response. Hence, this writ petition. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Government Pleader for Home and perused the counter-aﬃdavit ﬁled by the 2nd respondent-Sub-Inspector of Police, Pendlimarri Police Station. At the outset, it is to be noted that the prohibitory order passed by the 1st respondent under Sec.145 of Cr.P.C dated. 28-07-2008 shall be in force for a period of two months from 28-07-2008 to 27-09-2008. Nothing has been placed before this Court to show that the said order has been extended for further period. A perusal of the impugned order shows that the said prohibitory order was passed by the 1st respondent on being satisﬁed that there was every likelihood of breach of peace due to the disputes in respect of Sy.No.873/1. It is true that the petitioner herein is not a party to the said proceedings. The petitioner also claims that the entire Sy.No.873/1 is in his possession and enjoyment, which is to an extent of Ac.4.00. However, the impugned order shows that “A” party and “B” party whose names are speciﬁed there under are in occupation of land in Sy.No.873/1 and there are disputes among them, which are likely to result in law and order problem in the village. Whether the petitioner herein is in actual possession of any part of the schedule land of M.C.No.10 of 2008 cannot be enquired into and decided by this Court and therefore the Mandamus as prayed for cannot be granted. However, having regard to the fact that the petitioner’s representation is pending before the 1st respondent, in case the prohibitory order is still subsisting the 1st respondent is directed to consider the claim of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of one(1) week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. ____________ G.ROHINI,J 14th October 2008 TSNR/gbs