The Hon'ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy Writ Petition No.29885 of 2011 Date: 10th November, 2011 Between: Kolli Gopala Rao ..... Petitioner and 1.The State, rep. by the Principal Secretary to Government of A.P., Prohibition & Excise Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and 6 others. .....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: M/s.V.R.Avula Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 to 4: AGP for Prohibition & Excise Counsel for respondent Nos.5 to 7: ----- The Court made the following : O R D E R: This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of respondent Nos.3 and 4, in contemplating to grant permission to respondent No.7 for shifting the bar and restaurant being run by him to Door No.40-27- 5, Plot No.4, new Assessment No.224843, Ward No.28C, situated in R.S.Nos.23 & 24 of Pinnamaneni Polyclinic Road, of Vijayawada, as illegal and arbitrary. I have heard Sri V.R.Avula, learned Counsel for the petitioner, and perused the record. The petitioner, respondent No.5 and respondent No.6 are brothers. There is a dispute among them with respect to certain properties, which include the house property referred to above. The petitioner filed OS.No.112 of 2011 in the Court of the learned II Additional District Court, Vijayawada, for partition and separate possession of 1/3rd of the disputed properties including the above-mentioned one. The petitioner pleaded that the civil Court has granted an interim order restraining respondent Nos.5 and 6 from alienating the suit schedule properties. The cause, on which the present Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner, is that respondent No.6 has entered into an agreement with respondent No.7, permitting the latter to shift the bar and restaurant to the subject premises. The grievance of the petitioner is that, despite the objections filed by him and respondent No.5, respondent Nos.2 to 4 are contemplating to grant permission to respondent No.7 for shifting the bar and restaurant to the subject property. In my opinion, the dispute raised in this Writ Petition is purely of civil nature between the petitioner and respondent No.5 on the one side and respondent No.6 on the other. The right of the petitioner, over the property in dispute, is still inchoate and until and unless his title thereon is declared, the official respondents cannot be prevented from exercising their statutory functions on application filed by respondent No.7 for shifting of the bar and restaurant to the subject premises, which evidently is in possession of respondent No.6. Having already filed a civil suit and secured an interim order of injunction against respondent No.6 from alienating the suit schedule properties, there is no reason why the petitioner has not sought for appropriate relief against respondent No.6 from inducting a third party into possession of the subject property in the pending suit. In the light of the above facts, while declining to interfere with the dispute raised by the petitioner in this Writ Petition, the petitioner is relegated to the Civil Court, in which the suit filed by him is pending, for obtaining appropriate orders against respondent No.6. Subject to the above observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of. As a sequel, WPMP.No.37035 of 2011, filed by the petitioner for interim relief, is disposed of as infructuous. ______________________ (C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J) 10th November, 2011 LUR