THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO.19191 OF 2011 ORDER: The present Writ Petition is filed questioning the action of respondents 2 to 4, in insisting on the petitioner vacating an extent of Ac.2.00 cts in R.S. No.479/1 of Bhimole village, Gopalapuram Mandal, West Godavari District, as being illegal and arbitrary, A consequential direction is sought to the respondents not to interfere with the property of the petitioner. The petitioner claims to be cultivating an extent of Ac.2.00 cts of land in Sy. No.479/1A of Bhimole village, Gopalapuram Mandal, West Godavari District. He claims to have filed A.T.C. No.4 of 2011 before the Special Officer, Tenancy Tribunal seeking that he be declared a statutory tenant. He also filed A.T.C. No.5 of 2011 for a declaration that the sale deed executed by his landlord, in favour of the 5th respondent, is null and void. It is his grievance that respondents 5 to 7 had approached respondents 2 to 4, and had influence them to have the petitioner evicted from the tenancy holding. The petitioner would contend that, since this is purely a civil dispute, respondents 2 to 4 were not justified in interfering with his possession over the land or in supporting respondents 5 to 7 in their endeavour to have the petitioner evicted from the land in question. A counter-affidavit is filed by the 4th respondent wherein it is stated that the complaint lodged by the petitioner before the II Additional Judicial I Class Magistrate’s Court, Kovvur, to the effect that respondents 5, 7 and others had criminally trespassed into the land, was registered on the file of Gopalapuram Police Station on 14.07.2011 as Cr. No.108 of 2011 under Sections 307, 447, 427, 506(2) read with Section 34 of IPC, against respondents 5, 7 and others as A-1 to A-5; after the matter was investigated into, the complaint was found to be false; and a final report was submitted vide proceedings dated 31.07.2011. It is further stated that, with regards Cr. No.107 of 2001 filed by the 5th respondent under Sections 341, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC, investigation revealed that the accused had committed the offence; and a charge sheet was filed on 16.08.2011. It is also stated that respondents 2 to 4 had neither interfered with the property of the petitioner nor had they asked him to vacate the property. The statement, in the counter-affidavit, that respondents 2 to 4 are not interfering with the petitioner’s possession of the land is placed on record. As the cause in the Writ Petition no longer survives necessitating further adjudication, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. Date: 09.11.2011 ____________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J MRKR