IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.19852 of 2008 Between: 1 B. Chandra Mohan S/o. Venkatappaiah R/o. Keerthipadu Village & post, Maddipadu Mandal, Prakasam District. 2 B. Venkatappaiah S/o. Chenchaiah R/o. Keerthipadu Village & post, Maddipadu Mandal, Prakasam District. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The State rep. by its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat, Saifabad, Hyderabad. 2 The Superintendent of Police, Prakasam District at Ongole. 3 The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Ongole, Prakasam District. 4 The Circle Inspector of Police, Rural P.S., Ongole, Prakasam District. 5 The Station House Officer, Maddipadu P.S., Prakasam 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 may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in interfering with the petitioners peaceful possession, enjoyment and exercise of petitioners rights over the land of Ac.9-38 cents covered by Sy.No.190 of Keerthipadu Village, Maddipadu Mandal, as illegal, irregular, arbitrary and offends Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents not to interfere in any manner with the petitioners peaceful possession, enjoyment and exercising of ownership over the said land. Counsel for the Petitioners: MR.MUNIRAJA IRUGU Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.19852 OF 2008 ORDER: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for Home appearing for the respondents. According to the petitioners, they are the absolute owners and possessors of the lands to a total extent of Ac.9-38 cents in Sy.No.190 situated at Keerthipadu Village, Maddipadu Mandal of Prakasam District. It is their case that certain persons, namely, Kadiyala Rama Mohan Rao, Kadiyala Rama Subbaiah and Kadiyala Pushapavathi, who are not at all concerned with the aforesaid lands, have been highhandedly interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the aforesaid lands and have lodged false complaints before respondents 4 and 5, Circle Inspector of Police, Rural Police Station, Ongole, and Station House Officer, Maddipadu Police Station, Prakasam District respectively, against them. In pursuance of those false complaints, respondents 4 and 5 started interfering with the possession of the petitioners, sending police constables to their houses and insisting them to come to Police Station and also to vacate the lands in question. It is the grievance of the petitioners that though they have issued notices to the respondents, through registered post, on 29.08.2008, requesting them not to interfere with their possession of the lands in question, the respondents did not stop their interference. Hence, this writ petition. While issuing notice before admission on 12.09.2008, this Court directed the respondents not to interfere with the possession of the petitioners in respect of the land in question without following the due process of law, pending further orders. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that pursuant to the aforesaid interim orders, the petitioners are not being called to police station and the respondents have stopped harassing the petitioners. Further, the 5th respondent- Sub Inspector of Police, Maddipadu Police Station, has filed a detailed counter-affidavit, wherein, while denying all the allegations made by the petitioners, it is stated that no complaint whatsoever has been filed against the petitioners before the 5th respondent till date, and that neither the 4th respondent nor the 5th respondent sent any constables to the landed property of the petitioners at any point of time, and the respondents never interfered with the civil disputes nor harassed the petitioners to vacate the property in question. In view of the above averments made in the counter-affidavit of the 5th respondent, I deem it appropriate to direct the respondents not to interfere in the civil disputes between the petitioners and third parties in respect of the lands in question, without following the due process of law. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. __________________ JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU 21st November, 2008 IBL