HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY Writ Petition No.25488 of 2008 Date: 08-9-2011 Between Pendurthi Venkata Rao and 2 others … Petitioners and The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Home Department, Secretariat, Saifabad, Hyderabad and 2 others … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY Writ Petition No.25488 of 2008 Order: This writ petition is filed with the prayer, which reads as under: To issue a Writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in interfering with civil disputes connected to the lands of the petitioners inspite of pending civil suits as illegal, irregular, arbitrary, without jurisdiction and offends Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents not to interfere in any manner with the civil disputes connected to their lands admeasuring Ac.1-11 cents in R.S.No.800/1, Ac.1-14 cents in R.S.No.800/2 belonged to the 1st petitioner; Ac.2-12 cents in R.S.No.800/2 belonged to the 2nd petitioner and his children; Ac.2-13 cents in R.S.No.800/2 belonged to the 3rd petitioner and his sons, situated at Tirumaladevupet village of T.Narasapuram Mandal in West Godavari district. 2. It is the case of the petitioners that they are the owners and possessors of the aforesaid lands but one Shaik Mohiuddin and others have obtained a decree for partition without impleading them in O.S.No.212 of 1990 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Eluru. It is stated that coming to know about the said decree, the petitioners also filed a separate suit in O.S.No.31 of 2007 on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Eluru, for cancellation of the decree obtained in O.S.No.212 of 1990 and the same is pending. In this writ petition, it is the grievance of the petitioners that when the suit is pending with regard to civil disputes, the 3rd respondent is interfering with the civil disputes with regard to the landed property. It is their case that he sent Constables and asked the petitioners not to enter into the aforesaid lands for doing agricultural operations. Precisely, it is the case of the petitioners that the dispute is of civil in nature, the 3rd respondent cannot interfere with the same. 3. The 3rd respondent-Sub Inspector of Police, Chintalapudi Police Station, has filed a Counter-Affidavit. In the Counter-Affidavit while denying the various allegations made by the petitioners, it is stated that there was a complaint from one Shaik Ahmed Ali and Mohammed Anwar Basha against the petitioners alleging that they formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and criminally trespassed into the cashew and mango gardens of the complainants and cut away the cashew trees and one bandaru tree. It is stated that on such a complaint, a case in Crime No.76 of 2009 of T.Narsapuram Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 148, 447, 427, 379 and 506(2) read with Section 149 IPC was registered and investigated into. It is stated that as the investigation revealed that no case is made out against the petitioners, permission was obtained from the Sub Divisional Police Officer, Jangareddygudem Sub Division, to refer the complaint as of civil nature and investigation was completed and final report is being filed. It is submitted that except the investigation made by the 3rd respondent, there is no other interference with the civil disputes as alleged. It is stated that as the petitioners were required in the crime registered against them, they were summoned for the purpose of investigation into the case and the same cannot be termed as an interference with the civil disputes. 4. Though there is an allegation of interference by the 3rd respondent but the same is denied in the Counter-Affidavit filed by him. As it is stated in the counter that the investigation made in Crime No.76 of 2009 discloses no offence is made out against the petitioners and that except the investigation into the said crime, there is no interference with the property of the petitioners as alleged. 5. In view of the said statement, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition placing on record such averments in the Counter- Affidavit to the effect that no case is made out against the petitioners in the crime and there is also no interference by the respondents with the subject lands in question. 6. Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. ________________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J. 08th September, 2011. Ak HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY Writ Petition No.25488 of 2008 08th September, 2011. (Ak)