THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.22705 of 2010 Date: 08.11.2010 Between: Raavu Suryarao and another ..... Petitioners AND The District Collector, Kakinada and others .....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri M. Lakshmana Sharma Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 to 3: Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue Counsel for respondent No.4: Ms. Vasudha Nagaraj The Court made the following: ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.3 in seeking to interfere in civil disputes between the petitioners on the one side and respondent No.4 on the other with respect to the land comprised in survey No.97/1 (mentioned as comprised in survey No.97/2 in the impugned notice) as illegal and arbitrary. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Ms. Vasudha Nagaraj, the learned counsel representing respondent No.4. A perusal of the impugned notice dated 30.08.2010 issued by respondent No.3 shows that respondent No.4 has approached the former with the complaint that the petitioners have illegally occupied Ac.0.32 cents of land in survey No.97/1 and that possession thereof may be taken over from the petitioners and handover to respondent No.4. Respondent No.3, while observing that the said land was registered in favour of the petitioners as situated in survey No.97/2, has called upon both the parties to submit their respective explanations. The petitioners have pleaded that the land, which is claimed by respondent No.4 is actually situated in survey No.97/2 and that they are the owners of the said land. It is their further pleaded case that even assuming that respondent No.4 claims right over the said land, he can only approach the competent civil Court for appropriate relief and that respondent No.3 cannot interfere with the disputes between the private parties. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue is unable to point out any statutory provision under which respondent No.3 can entertain the representation of respondent No.4. The learned counsel for respondent No.4 is also equally unable to cite any such provision. In my opinion, when there is a dispute over the property between two private persons, it is only the civil Court of competent jurisdiction which is vested with the power to adjudicate upon such a dispute. Respondent No.3 has neither power nor jurisdiction to entertain any claim and adjudicate upon such a dispute. In this view of the matter, the impugned notice dated 30.08.2010 is set aside and respondent No.4 is left free to approach competent Court of law for redressal of his grievance. Subject to the above observations, the Writ Petition is allowed. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, interim order dated 13.09.2010 is vacated and W.P.M.P.No.28960 of 2010 filed by the petitioners for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. ________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 08th November, 2010 GHN