THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION No.27876 of 2009 ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of respondent Nos.2 and 3 in obtaining forcible undertaking of eviction from petitioner Nos.2 and 3, at the behest of respondent Nos.4 and 5, as arbitrary and illegal, and consequently to desist respondent Nos.2 and 3 from initiating the action to evict petitioner Nos.2 and 3 forcibly from the house bearing door No.8-13-21, situated in 326 sq. yards in Penumudivari Street, Gandinagar, Kakinada, East Godavari District. Brief facts of the case are that the father of petitioners one Appalanaidu, out of the income from the pan shop business, purchased land to an extent of 144 sq. yards, 192 sq. yards and 326 sq. yards situated at Penumudivari Street, Gandhinagar, Kakinada and also constructed a house which was assigned municipal door No.8- 13-21 over the site of 326 sq. yards. The site of 326 sq. yards was purchased by him in the name of the fourth respondent, who is a house wife and has no money. The father of the petitioners died on 05.07.2008. Thereafter, the fifth respondent raised a dispute before the elders claiming a share in the property of the father of the petitioners alleging that the fourth respondent purchased the site of 326 sq. yards from the father of the petitioners. The fifth respondent also issued a notice dated 26.06.2009 to the petitioners stating that the said site of 326 sq. yards including the house is streedhana of the fourth respondent and she executed a gift deed in favour of the fifth respondent and accordingly sought for eviction of the petitioners. According to the petitioners the fifth respondent obtained the said gift deed by influencing the fourth respondent within two months after the death of their father. While the matter stood thus, the third respondent sent a constable to the residence of petitioner Nos.2 and 3 and directed them to come to the Police Station to conduct enquiry as per the directions of the second respondent based on the complaint given by respondent Nos. 4 and 5 to the second respondent stating that the petitioners are harassing them and not vacate the building bearing door No. 8-13-21. The third respondent threatened petitioner Nos.2 and 3 to evict the property and deliver vacant possession to respondent Nos.4 and 5 by 31.12.2009, failing which they have to face dire consequences. Though the petitioners explained the situation to the third respondent, in vain, moreover the third respondent forcibly obtained letters of undertaking from petitioner Nos.2 and 3 to vacate the premises by the end of December, 2009. Therefore, the petitioners approached this Court. The third respondent filed a counter-affidavit, whereby it is inter alia stated on the basis of the complaint given by the fourth respondent against the third petitioner and his son that they criminally trespassed into her house and harassing her and she is expecting danger in their hands, the second respondent directed the third respondent to enquire into the matter and therefore, the third respondent to know the veracity of the complaint of the fourth respondent summoned the petitioners to Police Station and enquired the matter and since the dispute is civil in nature, advised them to settle the dispute in a competent civil Court. It is further stated that though the third respondent did not ask any statement, the second petitioner himself addressed a letter to the third respondent dated 19.09.2009 stating that he will inform the Police as and when he vacates the house. It is also stated that since the dispute is purely civil in nature, no action was initiated; that Police have nothing to do with it and that Police never interfere in civil disputes much less the dispute between the petitioners and respondent Nos. 4 and 5. The statement of the third respondent that Police will not interfere in civil disputes between the petitioners and respondent Nos.4 and 5 is recorded and in view of the same, nothing survives for adjudication in this writ petition. The Writ Petition is accordingly closed. It is needless to say that if any undertaking was taken by the Police from the petitioners, the same shall not have any effect in law. No costs. _______________________ N.V. RAMANA, J 04th August, 2010 GHN