IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 1128 of 2008 Between: Mudumala Phillipts, S/o. Jesephs, R/o. Plot No. 20, APSEB Employees Co.op. House Building Society, Opp B. Pharmacy College, Tarulapadu Road, Markapuram, Prakasam Dsitrict-523 316. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Office of MRO, Markapuram, Prakasam District. 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Markapuram, Prakasam District. 3 Hebron, Regd. No. 14/1971, Golconda Cross Roads, Hyderabad - 500 020. 4 Nagalarapu Anandam, S/o. Yohan, Zion Prayer House, 10-201, College Road, Markapuram, Prakasam 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 RS No. 256/2A1 in plot No. 159, 160, 163, 164 and 168 Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.VENKATA RAGHU MANNEPALLI Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION No.1128 of 2008 ORDER: The fundamental grievance of the petitioner appears directed against the conduct of the fourth respondent in interfering with the petitioner’s right to pursue prayers in a prayer house for which land is stated to have been allotted by the first respondent on 25.09.2006 in different extents, in College Road, Markapuram, Prakasam District. The affidavit filed in support of the writ petition pleads about some civil suit filed by the fourth respondent seeking a permanent injunction, wherein the petitioner claims to have filed a counter affidavit, whereafter the fourth respondent is claimed to have withdrawn the suit. It is also stated that the third respondent informed the petitioner vide letter dated 03.10.2005 that the place will be employed only to spread the word of Jesus and for prayers and maintaining peace. The petitioner states that the fourth respondent violated all the conditions and was trying to occupy the entire property. In the circumstances, the petitioners seek a direction to the fourth respondent not to interfere with the petitioner’s right to prayer and assemblage in the property allotted by the first respondent for the purpose of spreading the gospel. As framed and as pleaded, the writ petition does not disclose any cause of action warranting public law intervention. If the petitioner has problem with the fourth respondent, such disputes ought to be presented before the civil Court of competent jurisdiction and not under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. On the aforesaid analysis, the writ petition is misconceived and is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to pursue appropriate remedies in private law. GODA RAGHURAM,J Dt.22.04.2009 usd