IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No: 2160 of 2003 BETWEEN: Kareti Ramana Reddy, S/o.Guruva Reddy, R/o. Munagapadi Village, Sydapuram Mandal, Nellore District. ... PETITIONER AND 1 The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Gudur. 2 Station House Officer, Sydapuram Village & Mandal, Nellore. 3 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Gudur 4 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Sydapuram Mandal, Nellore Dist., 5 Badi Ramana Reddy, S/o. Penchal Reddy, Sydapuram Mandal, Nellore District. ...RESPONDENTS 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 issue an order writ order or direction on more particularly a writ of Mandamus under Article 22 of the Constitution of India declaring the action of the respondents 1 & 2 in interfering in civil dispute and seeking to evict the petitioner from his lawful possession and enjoyment of the lemon garden in an extent of Ac.1-07 cents of dry land in Sy.no.13-2B of Munagapadu village Sydapuram Mandal, Nellore district at the instance of the 4th respondent as illegal arbitrary unjust and violative of the Articles 300-Aof the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents not to interfere in the civil dispute between the petitioner and 5th respondent nor interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the above said land and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.P.SRIDHAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following: ORDER: The only grievance of the petitioner is that the official respondents 1 and 2 are interfering in his civil disputes with the fifth respondent. 2. Counter has been filed by the Mandal Revenue Officer stating that on a complaint received from the fifth respondent on 11.10.2002 to the effect that the fifth respondent was obstructed by his neighbouring ryots from entering into his patta land, he addressed a letter to the police to take appropriate action. The respondents 1 and 2 also filed a counter stating that the police never registered any case and never interfered with the civil disputes between the petitioner and the fifth respondent at any point of time nor sought to evict the petitioner from the possession and enjoyment of the land in question. 3. The police cannot interfere with the civil disputes. If there is any complaint showing commission of a cognizable offence, it is always open to them to register a case and investigate the same. So also, the revenue authorities cannot interfere in the civil disputes without initiating proceedings under appropriate law. 4. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and as no proceedings have been initiated either by the police or by the revenue authorities, I am of the opinion that the civil rights of the petitioners cannot be interfered with. The respondents 1 to 4 are directed not to interfere with the civil disputes of the petitioner except otherwise in accordance with law. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________ V. ESWARAIAH, J April 16, 2008 DSK