IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.11544 of 2008 BETWEEN Smt. A. Usha Shyamala. ... PETITIONER AND The Director General of Police, Hyderabad and two others. ...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: MR. J.U.M.V. PRASAD Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following order: ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking Mandamus to direct the respondents not to interfere with the civil disputes and harass the petitioner with regard to plot bearing No.1176 in Sy.No.11 (Part) admeasuring 300 sq. yards situated at Khanamet village, Sherilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that he purchased the aforesaid plot from his vendor viz. Laxman Goud, R/o. Kothaguda village, under an agreement of sale dated 24.10.2004 and was inducted into possession. It is stated that though the vendor of the petitioner is purchaser by way of registered sale deed dated 25.06.1982 bearing document No.5422 of 1982, the Sub- Inspector of Police, Madhapur Police Station, is calling him to the police station to examine the documents. The grievance of the petitioner is that he being the original owner of the aforesaid plot, if any third party disputes his title, it is not for the police to interfere in the civil dispute. 3. At the stage of admission, by order dated 29.05.2008, this Court directed the respondents not to interfere with the civil disputes of the petitioner. It was also observed that the said order will not preclude the respondents from taking any action if any complaint of criminal nature is made before them. Though the writ petition is of the year 2008, no counter is filed. 4. However, when the matter is taken up for hearing, it is represented by the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents that the respondent-police is not interfering with the plot of the petitioner, as alleged in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. 5. In view of the allegations of the petitioner in the affidavit being not contraverted by any counter and taking into account the interim order passed by this Court, which continued all along for the last three years, I deem it appropriate to direct the respondents not to interfere with petitioner’s Plot bearing No.1176 in Sy.No.11 (Part) admeasuring 300 sq. yards situated at Khanamet village, Sherilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. However, it is made clear that if any complaint is filed against the petitioner, this order will not preclude the respondents from taking action in accordance with law. The writ petition is disposed of with the directions aforesaid. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J August 18, 2011 DSK