THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.11985 of 2010 Date:19.07.2010 Between: B. Viswanath. ..... Petitioner AND The Superintendent of Police, Ananthapur, and others. .....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr.N. Aswarthanarayana Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 and 2: Assistant Government Pleader for Home Counsel for Respondent No.3: Mr. R.V. Nagabhushan Rao The Court made the following: ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.2 in interfering with the civil disputes between the petitioner and respondent No.3 relating to land admeasuring Ac.0.04 cents in survey No.124-3 of Kaluvapalli, H/o Kodigenahalli, Parigi Mandal, Ananthapur District, as illegal and arbitrary. A dispute is existing between the petitioner and respondent No.3 over the abovementioned property. According to the petitioner, he filed O.S.No.54 of 2008 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Hindupur, for a permanent injunction and that the I.A. filed for temporary injunction is still pending. The grievance of the petitioner is that at the instance of respondent No.3, respondent No.2 has summoned the petitioner to the Police Station and stated that he shall not interfere with the proposed construction by respondent No.3. The petitioner alleged that respondent No.2 has given oral permission to respondent No.3 to construct over the disputed site. No counter-affidavits have been filed on behalf of the respondents. At the hearing, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, on instructions, submitted that respondent No.2 has not been interfering in the civil disputes. Mr. R.V. Nagabhushan Rao, leaned counsel for respondent No.3, submitted that his client has filed O.S.No.9 of 1991 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Hindupur, against the father of the petitioner for permanent injunction and the said suit was decreed and that A.S.No.51 of 1999 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Hindupur, filed against the said judgment and decree was dismissed and accordingly, the judgment and decree for permanent injunction against the petitioner’s father has become final. He further stated that the petitioner had been illegally interfering in the construction of the house by respondent No.3 and that the construction has already been completed. In view of the denial of the allegation by respondent No.2 that he has been interfering in civil disputes, no direction need be given to the said respondent. If the petitioner has any legitimate grievance with regard to the property in dispute, he is entitled to pursue the suit which is stated to be pending. Subject to the above observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.15101 of 2010 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. ________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 19th July, 2010 GHN