THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA Writ Petition No.24422 of 2009 ORDER: The main grievance of the petitioner-Educational Society is that the second respondent, namely, the Station House Officer, Rayachoti Urban Police Station, Rayachoti, Kadapa District, is not registering a case against the third respondent, in spite of a complaint being made by it on 03.11.2009 about the alleged interference by the third respondent with its property. Today, when the matter is taken up, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2 has produced written instructions of the second respondent, wherein while denying the allegations made by the petitioner, it is stated that in the first week of November, 2009 the petitioner as well as the third respondent appeared before the second respondent stating that there is a rastha dispute between them and orally requested to settle the matter. It is also stated that after perusing the Xerox copies of the records produced by them, the second respondent claims to have forwarded the said documents to the Tahsildar, Rayachoty with a requisition to settle the matter to avoid law and order problem and suggested the petitioner and the third respondent to appear before the Tahsildar, Rayachoty. It is categorically stated that the petitioner has not lodged any complaint with the second respondent. However, at the hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner lodged a complaint with the second respondent on 03.11.2009 and a copy of the same was also filed as material paper along with the writ petition. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2. From the stand taken by the first respondent in the counter, it appears that there is civil dispute between the petitioner and the third respondent with regard to a rastha. The question as to whether the rastha belongs to the petitioner or the third respondent or whether they have right of easement in the rastha, are disputed questions, which cannot be gone into in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The remedy of the petitioner, therefore, is to approach the competent civil Court, and obtain appropriate relief. Therefore, even assuming that the petitioner has made representation, no fault can be found with the inaction of the second respondent in acting on the same. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. ___________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. Date:19.07.2010 VGB