THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.28014 OF 2011 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed to declare the action of the respondents in interfering with the civil dispute with respect to an extent of Ac.11-30 cents of land situated in R.S.Nos.129/1, 150, 151, 152 and 237 of Chinagonnuru Village, Gudlavalluru Mandal, Krishna District, as arbitrary and illegal. A consequential direction is sought to the respondents not to interfere with the civil dispute. The petitioners, two in number, claim to have obtained an extent of Ac.9-30 cents of land on lease, and to be cultivating the said property as a tenant by paying maktha each year. The original owners are said to have sold Ac.2-00 of land to one Sri Venkata Ranga Rao by registered sale deed dated 09.07.1984. Sri Venkata Ranga Rao is said to be in possession of Ac.2-00 of land, and the petitioners are in possession of Ac.9-30 cents of land, from out of the total extent of Ac.11-30 cents of land belonging to the original owners Sri Adapala Veera Venkata Rao, Sri Adapala Bhavani Prasad and Sri Adapala Vijaya Bhaskar Rao. On 10.05.1990, the petitioners claim to have been asked to purchase the said extent of Ac.2-00 by Sri Venkata Ranga Rao. There seems to be a civil dispute pending before the petitioners and respondent Nos.6,7 and 10, who filed O.S.No.213 of 2010 before the Senior Civil Judge, Gudivada, for permanent injunction. The said suit is still pending. I.A.No.888 of 2011 filed by respondent Nos.6,7 and 10 for temporary injunction is said to have been dismissed by the Senior Civil Judge, Gudivada, by order dated 16.08.2011. A complaint was registered against the second petitioner in Crime No.91 of 2010 under Sections 447, 427 and 506 read with 34 IPC. It is the petitioners’ case that the unofficial respondents, in collusion with the police officials, had sought to interfere with their possession resulting in their giving a complaint which, the petitioners claim, was neither received nor registered. However, a copy of the said complaint has not been filed as part of the material papers along with the Writ Petition. As held by the Supreme Court, in Sakiri Vasu v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others[1], the petitioners have an effective remedy under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.), whereunder the Magistrate concerned has not only the power to order registration of an offence, but also to direct the officer incharge of the concerned police station to hold proper investigation and, if need be, to monitor the investigation, if any, carried on. In view of the alternative remedy available to the petitioners, I consider it wholly inappropriate to exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Leaving it open to the petitioners to avail the alternative remedy under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C, the Writ Petition is dismissed. However, in the circumstances, without costs. _____________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J October 18, 2011 Note: Issue C.C. in one week. B/O.MD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.28014 OF 2011 October 18, 2011 MD [1] (2008) 2 SCC 409