IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO : 628 of 2009 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 15/04/2009 in WP NO : 7538 OF 2009 on the file of the High Court.) Between: Mandali Sri Rama Murthy S/o.Subba Rao R/o.Jangareddigudem W.G.District ..... APPELLANT AND 1 The District Collector, West Godavari District Eluru 2 The Superintendent of Police,West Godavari District Eluru 3 The Sub Inspector of POlice, T.Narasapuram P.S West Godavari District 4 Sri Gada Surya Prakash Rao S/o.Not knwon r/o.Kollivarigudem village T.Narasapuram mandal, W.G.District .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellant: MR.P.R.K.AMERANDRA KUMAR Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE The Division Bench of this Court made the following : Judgment follows 2nd page THE HON'BLE SMT.JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO : 628 of 2009. J U D G M E N T : (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice Sanjay Kumar) The grievance of the appellant-writ petitioner is that in spite of his having made a complaint to the Respondent Nos.1 to 3 with regard to the illegalities allegedly perpetuated by the fourth respondent, no action was taken thereupon. 2. The learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition holding that the same was misconceived, as the alleged acts on the part of the fourth respondent amounted to civil dispute and that the remedy for the petitioner is to file a suit before the competent civil court. 3. When the writ appeal came up for admission on 03-6- 2009 we asked the learned Government Pleader for Home to obtain instructions as to what action was initiated on the representation made by the appellant-writ petitioner. Today, the learned Assistant Government Pleader placed before us the instructions received from the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Jangareddigudem in C.No.208/SDPO-JRG/09, dated 06-6-2009. 4. A perusal of the same reveals that the fourth respondent was found to be in possession of the subject land and it is further stated that it is also been issued pattedar and title deed also. While stating so, the Sub-Divisional Police Officer opined that it was purely civil matter and does not concerned with the police. 5. In view of the aforesaid facts, we are of the opinion that it is for the appellant-writ petitioner to work out his grievance against the fourth respondent before appropriate forum in accordance with law. There are no merits in the writ appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ________________________ JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI ____________________ JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR 08-6-2009. I s L