IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.13009 of 2009 Between: Bete Durga Rao, S/o. Laxmaiah, (S.T) R/o. Mulugalampalli, Jeelugumilli (M) West Godavari District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Superintendent of Police, West Godavari District., Eluru. 2 The Sub-Inspector of Police, Jeelugumilli (M), West Godavari District. 3 The Tahsildar, Jeelugumilli (M), West Godavari District. 4 Malladi Satyanarayana Chakravarthy, S/o.late Ramabraham R/o. Mulagalampalli (V) Jeelugumill (M) West Godavari District. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.M.BABJI FOR MR.K.VENKATESH Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3: AGP FOR HOME The Court made the following : ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare action of respondent Nos.1 and 2, in not taking action against respondent No.4 in spite of report, dated 14-02-2009, filed by respondent No.3, as illegal and arbitrary. There are long standing disputes over property admeasuring Ac.3-34 cents in Survey No.181/3 at Rowthugudem Village, Jeelugumilli Mandal, West Godavari District, between the petitioner and respondent No.4. Respondent No.4 filed proceedings before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Jangareddygudem, West Godavari District, who, by Order, dated 20-12-2008, in EA.No.1 of 2008 in E.P.No.3 of 2008 in O.S.No.1 of 2007, directed the Station House Officer, Jeelugumilli Police Station, to restrain the petitioner from interfering with the possession of the petitioner over the above-mentioned property. However, later the petitioner appeared to have approached the Tahsildar, Jeelugumilli, who submitted a report to the District Collector, West Godavari District, to the effect that enquiry revealed that respondent No.4 with the support of one Ginne Venkateswara Rao damaged the crop existing in the above-mentioned land. The grievance of the petitioner is that despite the said report, respondent Nos.1 and 2 have not been taking any action. Though the petitioner alleged that he made a complaint to respondent Nos.1 and 2 to take action against respondent No.4, no action has been taken by them. The petitioner, however, did not give the details of the complaint nor filed a copy of the same in this Writ Petition. The learned Counsel for the petitioner stated that against Order, dated 20-12-2008, in EA.No.1 of 2008 in E.P.No.3 of 2008 in O.S.No.1 of 2007 referred to above, the petitioner filed an appeal and the same is pending. He stated that the above-said order has not been stayed. The disputes are predominantly civil in nature. Therefore, any direction to the respondents-Police Officers to interfere in such disputes amounts to allowing them to interfere in civil disputes. If appropriate complaint is made by the petitioner against respondent No.4, and if the said complaint discloses commission of an offence, then respondent Nos.1 and 2 shall take appropriate action thereon. Subject to the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, WPMP.No.16837 of 2009 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. ___________________________ (C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J) 27th July, 2009 lur