IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO : 19113 of 2008 Between: B. Srinivasulu S/o. Subbanna R/o. 8/385 A, Gooty Town, Ananthapur District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Tahsildar, Gooty, Ananthapur District. 2 The Station House Officer, Gooty, Ananthapur District. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or writs, order or direction declaring the proceedings dt. 27-08-2008 passed in Rc.No.B1/296/2008 on the file of the first respondent herein as illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction, violative of principles of natural justice and violative of Arts. 21 & 300-A of Constitution of India; Award Costs. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.N.RANGA REDDY Counsel for Respondent No.1: GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for Respondent No.2: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.19113 of 2008 ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking a Mandamus declaring the letter, dated 27.08.2008, in R.C.No.B1/296/2008 passed by the Tahsildar, Gooty, the 1st respondent, as arbitrary, illegal, without jurisdiction and violative of principles of natural justice and Article 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India. According to the petitioner, he is the owner and possessor of the land in an extent of Ac.3.96 ½ cents covered by Sy.Nos.425/A/2, 425/B and 426 situated at Gooty in Ananthapur District, having purchased the same for a sale consideration of Rs.1,81,000/- under the registered sale deed from one T.S.Rajasekhar on 10.07.2008. It is his case that Sy.Nos.425/A/2, 425/B and 426 situated at Gooty in Ananthapur District, in which he purchased the land to an extent of Ac.3.96 ½ cents, also comprises of other extents of land belonging to other persons. Thereafter, on arising some disputes regarding the ownership of the land in the aforesaid survey numbers, a Revision petition has been preferred before the Joint Collector, Anantapur, wherein status quo orders were obtained pending disposal of the Revision Petition. While that being so, one Chowdary Basavaraj, who is no way concerned with the subject property, made an application to the 1st respondent to direct the 2nd respondent to provide police protection to him for the purpose of cultivating the lands. The main grievance of the petitioner is that though the Revision in respect of the aforesaid property is pending before the Joint Collector, Anantapur, the 1st respondent, pursuant to the application submitted by Chowdary Basavaraj, issued the impugned letter directing the 2nd respondent to provide police protection to the said Chowdary Basavaraj for cultivation of the lands in question. Hence, this writ petition. There is no necessity of going into all the details. It is suffice to notice the averments made at paragraph 3 of the counter affidavit, wherein it is stated that the 2nd respondent police did not provide any protection to the said Chowdary Basavaraj, though the 1st respondent requested them to do so. Further, the allegation of the petitioner that the police is calling him to the police station frequently and asking him to produce certain documents is false. The 2nd respondent is neither aiding the said Chowdary Basavaraj nor giving any protection to him in cultivating the lands in question. In view of the above counter averments, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 2nd respondent police not to interfere in the civil disputes between the petitioner and others regarding the subject property. No order as to costs. _____________ C.V.RAMULU,J 21.11.2008 v v