IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 8353 of 2008 Between: Mangalagiri Lova Raju, S/o. late Krishna Rao, Hindu, R/o. S.C. Colony, Narasipatnam, Visakhapatnam District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Superintendent of Police, Visakhapatnam. 2 The Sub Inspector of Police, Golugonda Police Station, Golugonda Village and Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. 3 Rudraraju Seetarama Raju, S/o. Surapuraju, Gangaparru Village, Bhimavaram Mandal, West Godavari District. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.K.SUBRAHMANYAM Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 and 2: GP FOR HOME Counsel for Respondent No.3: NONE APPEARED The Court made the following : ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed for a writ of Mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.2 in interfering with the civil disputes between the petitioner and respondent No.3 in respect of lands comprised in Survey Nos.51, 52 and 59 of Jammavaram Village, Golugonda Mandal, Visakhapatnam District, as illegal and arbitrary. A perusal of the averments contained in the affidavit, filed in support of the Writ Petition, shows that after due enquiry, the Tahsildar, Golugonda Mandal, issued pattadar pass books in favour of the petitioner on 16-08-2007, and respondent No.3, with the intervention of respondent No.2, is interfering with his possession. This Court on earlier occasions took serious note of the police interference in civil disputes. While I do not intend to repeat the observations made by this Court on earlier occasions, the need for respondent No.2 to stay away from the civil disputes is required to be reiterated. Respondent No. 2 shall do well to realize that it is no part of his duty to interfere in civil disputes unless a proper complaint alleging commission of a cognizable offence is filed by a citizen. Unless a crime is registered, the police cannot meddle with the disputes between private parties over the private properties. On the premises above-mentioned, the Writ Petition is disposed of. Respondent No.2 is directed not to interfere with the civil dispute between the petitioner and respondent No.3 in respect of the property in dispute. As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, WPMP.No.11037 of 2008 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. ______________________ (C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J) 17th April, 2008 Note: Furnish cc within a week. (B/o) lur