IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY TUESDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF MARCH, TWO THOUSAND EIGHT ONLY WRIT PETITION No.4131 of 2008 Between: Kurella Venkata Lakshmi W/o.Veerabhadra Rao,(F) R/o.Mastyapuripalem(V) Veeravasaram(M) W.G Dist ..... PETITIONER AND 1. The State of A.P Rep.by its Principal Secretary to Home Department, Secretariat, Saifabad,Hyderabad 2 The Superintendent of Police West Godavari Dist at Eluru 3 The Deputy Superintendent of Police Narsapur,W.G Dist 4 The Inspector of Police Narsapur Rural Circle,Narsapur,W.G Dist. 5 The Station House Officer Narsapur Rural P.S. W.G Dist .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the petitioners: Sri Nimmagadda Satyanarayana. Counsel for the respondents: Asst. Govt. Pleader for Home. The Court made the following: ORDER:- This Writ Petition is filed for a Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in interfering with the civil dispute between the petitioner and the third parties in respect of Ac.5.60 cents of land comprised in Survey No.3/2 of Mastyapuripalem Revenue Village, as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India. In her affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition, the petitioner averred that her father-in-law, who was a cultivating tenant of Ac.5.60 cents of land, agreed to purchase the same from its owner Sri Pasumarthi Subba Rayudu for Rs.26,675/- and, accordingly, a possessory agreement of sale was executed by the said person in favour of her petitioner’s father-in-law on 17-5-1975; that due to some dispute the owner of the said land failed to execute the registered sale deed in favour of her father-in- law; and that the dispute was referred to elders, who settled the same on 10-7-1983, according to which, the owner-Sri Pasumarthi Subba Rayudu relinquished all his rights in the said property by receiving the balance sale consideration from her father-in-law and since then he was in possession of the said property. The petitioner further averred that her father-in-law executed a Will on 7-8-1984 in her favour and in favour of Smt.Telikicherla Sita Mahalakshmi, with life interest being given to the mother- in-law of the petitioner, by name, Smt.Kurella Sattemma; that the petitioner’s father-in-law died on 20-1-1985 and mother-in-law died in the year 1986; that after their death the property devolved on the petitioner and Talkicherla Sita Mahalakshmi with absolute rights; and that they are in joint possession of the same. The petitioner further alleged that one Sri K.K.R.P.Veera Venkata Satyanarayana and others filed ATC No.10 of 2000 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Bhimavaram, West Godavari District and got collusive orders; that on the strength of the said orders they filed an Execution Petition; that the petitioner is not a party to the said proceedings and, hence, the said order does not bind her; that another ATC No.15 of 1984 filed by one Sita Mahalakshmi and her sister Varalakshmi in the Court of the Principal District Munsif, Narasapur against the petitioner’s father-in-law, K.Bindu Madhavi and Sathemma was dismissed; that the appeal filed against the same having been allowed by the District Judge, Eluru, West Godavari District, one Sri Kurella Veerabhadra Rao filed a revision in CRP No.3805 of 1996 filed and the said revision was dismissed. The petitioner further submitted that she filed O.S.No.154 of 2006 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Bheemavaram for partition and other reliefs and the same is pending. She alleged that on 20-2-2008 respondent No.3 sent two Police Constables to the petitioner’s property with an ultimatum that she should vacate the land. The petitioner is, therefore, aggrieved by the said action of respondent No.3 in interfering with the civil dispute between her and the third parties. Respondent No.5 filed a counter-affidavit, in which it is, inter alia, averred that one Sri T.N.Somayajulu, GPA holder of late T.Sita Mahalakshmi, W/o.T.N.Somayajulu, lodged a complaint on 13-2-2008 stating that he was handed over possession of Ac.5.60 cents of land in Survey No.3/2 by the Field Officer of the Court of Additional Junior Civil Judge, Bheemavaram in E.P.No.206 of 2006; that during his visit to the said land on 3-2-2008 he found that one Kurella Veerabhadra Rao, his son Satyanarayana and other family members are transplanting paddy saplings; that upon receipt of the said complaint, an entry was made in the General Diary on 13- 2-2008 and immediately he deputed the Assistant Sub- Inspector of Police and a Home Guard to the disputed land for enquiry and to maintain law and order; and that, prima facie, the complaint was found to be in civil nature, no action was being initiated. Respondent No.5 denied the allegation that respondents interfered with the civil disputes. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home and perused the record, I am of the view that in the face of the stand taken by respondent No.5 in his counter- affidavit, as noted above, no adjudication of the issues raised in the Writ Petition is needed because respondent No.5 admitted that the dispute is of civil nature and that they are not interfering with the disputes between the petitioner and the third parties. In view of this categorical assertion of respondent No.5, The Writ Petition is dismissed as infructuous. -------------------------------------- C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J 04-3-2008 MNR