IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 14833 of 2008 Between: Golla Medam Bojjappa S/o. Golla narasappa, R/o. Kuderu Village and Mandal, Anathapur District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Tahsildar, Kuderu Mandal, Ananthapur District. 2 B.Sreeramulu S/o. B.Pullappa Kudure Village and Mandal, Ananthapur District. .....RESPONDENTS 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 issue appropriate writ, or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 1st respondent in interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioner's joint family property to an extent of Ac. 21-00 cents in Sy.No.:444-1 of Kuderu Village and Mandal, of Anantapur District as illegal, arbitrary and in violation of Art, 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the 1st respondent not to interfere with the petitioner's possession and enjoyment over the land to an extent of Ac.21-00 cents in Sy.No. :444-1 of Kuderu Village and Mandal Ananthapur District in the interest of justice and pass such other or further order as this Hon'ble Court may deem ﬁt and property in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.S.D.GOWD Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : ORDER: Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Revenue and learned counsel for the second respondent. This writ petition is ﬁled contending that the ﬁrst respondent – Tahasildar, Kuderu Mandal, is interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioner’s joint family property to an extent of Acs.21.00 in survey No.444-1 of Kuderu Village and Mandal of Anantapur District and also sought a direction to the ﬁrst respondent not to interfere with their possession and enjoyment of the said land. It is also stated that when the second respondent made an attempt to enter into the land under the guise of a sham document in the year 1987, one of the members of their joint family ﬁled a suit in O.S.No.287 of 1988 on the ﬁle of Principal District Munsif, Anantapur to declare the property in question as their joint family property and the plaintiﬀ therein was entitled to one third share, and the said suit was decreed, against which, the appeal, ﬁled by the second respondent was also dismissed. Thereafter, the second respondent ﬁled another suit in O.S.No.474 of 2007 on the ﬁle of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Anantapur, for perpetual injunction in respect of the very same property along with an application being I.A.No.1444 of 2007 for temporary injunction and the said application was dismissed and suit is pending adjudication. The ﬁrst respondent- Tahasildar ﬁled a counter-aﬃdavit stating that there were some disputes between the petitioner and others in the village with regard to their rights over the property in question. It is also stated that when there was a dispute likely to arise, causing law and order problem in the village, proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. were issued. Thereafter, since both the parties have gone to the civil Court, they were directed to resolve their dispute before the civil Court and that absolutely there is no interference from the office of the Tahasildar. The second respondent ﬁled a separate counter-aﬃdavit denying the averments made by the petitioner stating that himself and his brother purchased one third share out of Acs.21.00 of land under a registered sale deed. The petitioner herein is claiming one third share in the said land through his father, who is second defendant in O.S.No.287 of 1988, on the ﬁle of the Principal District Munsif, Anantapur, which was ﬁled by one Golla Sangappa against the second respondent’s vendor and father of the petitioner, for the relief of partition and the said suit was decreed holding that the father of the petitioner and his vendor are entitled to one third share, each. Therefore, the relief claimed in the writ petition is misconceived and contra to the judgment and decree in O.S.No.287 of 1988. In the above background, it is made clear that the matter is seized by the civil Court, and therefore, this Court is not inclined to entertain the writ petition. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed, leaving it open to the petitioner to work out his remedies before the civil Court. No costs. _____________ N.V.RAMANA, J. Dated:10.09.2008 GJ