IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHT DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.32390 of 2010 BETWEEN Vutla Venakta Subbaiah and two others. ... PETITIONERS AND The Sub-Inspector of Police. Obuladevara Cheruvu Police Station, Anantapur District and four others. ...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioners: MR. K. RATHANGA PANI REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following: ORDER: In this writ petition, the petitioners seek direction by way of Mandamus to declare the action of the first respondent in harassing and threatening them by calling to the police station and interfering with the civil dispute, which exist between the petitioner and the respondents 2 to 5 as illegal and arbitrary. 2. It is the case of the first petitioner that he purchased an extent of Ac.13.00 cents of land pursuant to the agreement of sale dated 05.01.1987 executed by one G. Venkata Krishna Reddy, who is the brother of the fourth respondent herein. It is stated that when the said vendor has not executed the sale deed, the first petitioner filed a suit being O.S.No.345 of 2009 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kadiri for specific performance of agreement of sale and the same was decreed on 08.03.2010. It is submitted that when the vendor of the petitioner is coming forward to execute the sale deed in pursuance of the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.345 of 2009, the respondent No.1 is interfering with the civil dispute at the instance of respondents 2 to 5. 3. Based on the written instructions of the Station House Officer, Obuladevara Cheruvu Police Station, it is submitted by the learned Government Pleader that the dispute between the petitioner and the unofficial respondents is purely of civil nature and that the petitioner is not called to the police station on 14.12.2010 or on any other date, as alleged by the petitioner. It is further submitted that the writ petition is filed on mere apprehension without any basis by making false allegations. 4. Although it is the case of the petitioners that there interference by the first respondent, the learned Government Pleader submits on written instructions that the first respondent is not interfering with the matter, as such, there is no need to probe further in the matter and I deem it appropriate to make it clear that any further complaint of this nature will be viewed very seriously against the first respondent. Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J December 28, 2010 DSK