HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY Writ petition No.1549 of 2008 Dated: February 1, 2008 Between: Bavisetty Vasu Babu, S/o. Seetharamaiah, Aged about 37 years, Occ: Business, R/o.D.No.3-1-110, Vidyadharapuram, Vijayawada, Krishna District. … Petitioner And The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Rural, Guntur District, at Guntur, and others. … Respondents Order: In this writ petition, petitioner seeks Mandamus to declare the action of respondents in not passing any orders on his representations dated 11-01-2008 and 17-01-2008. 2. Petitioner claims ownership and possession over the land admeasuring Ac.6.41 cents, D.No.139/1, situated at Khaja village, Mangalagiri Mandal, Guntur District. It is stated that he purchased the said land by registered agreement of sale-cum-General Power of Attorney, registered in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Pedakakani, Guntur. Pleading interference with his possession of the aforesaid land by respondents 4, 5 & 6, he filed a suit in O.S.No.233 of 2007 on the file of IV Additional District Judge, Guntur, along with an interlocutory application. He filed a miscellaneous petition in R & T.M.P.No.24 of 2008 before this court, during Sankranthi Vacation, seeking injunction orders against respondents 4 to 6. This court, by order dated 08-01-2008, granted injunction orders restraining the respondents from making any constructions in the land in question for a period of three weeks. On 11-01-2008 and 17-01-2008, petitioner filed representations to the respondents complaining that in spite of orders of this court, constructions were being made and accordingly made a request to initiate action against respondents 4 to 6 for making illegal constructions. 3. Except violation of the orders of this court by the respondents, there is no other complaint in the writ petition about any trespass in the land in question, attracting the provisions of the Indian Penal Code, so as to seek directions as prayed for. If the petitioner is aggrieved, it is open for him to move an application in the said suit before the court below, however, no direction as sought for can be issued. 4. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed, keeping open to the petitioner to seek appropriate relief in the suit filed by him. No order as to costs. _________________________ JUSTIC​E R. SUBHASH REDDY February 1, 2008 MRR