IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.12354 of 2009 Between: A.Satyanarayana Sa/o.Rama Subbaiah Setty R/o.H.No.7-213, Prakash Road,Anantapur ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Superintendent of Police,Anantapur District, Anantapur 2 The Sub Inspector of Police,II Town Police station Anantapur 3 K.Kesava REddy S/o.Narayanappa R/o.Prakash Road, Anantapur .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.D.KODANDARAMI REDDY Counsel for Respondents 1 & 2:AGP FOR HOME The Court made the following : ORDER: In this writ petition, the petitioner complained of unlawful interference by respondent No.2 with his property at the instance of respondent No.3. The petitioner and respondent No.3 are neighbours. The petitioner approached the Municipal Corporation of Anantapur for permission to demolish the old house and construct a new house in property bearing No.7-213, Prakash Road, Anantapur, belonging to him. It is the case of the petitioner that while he was demolishing his old house, the compound wall belonging to respondent No.3 was damaged. Respondent No.3 filed O.S.No.874 of 2007 in the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Anantapur (for short ‘the Civil Court’). He also filed I.A.No.2520 of 2007 in the said suit to restrain the petitioner from encroaching into his property. The petitioner averred that the Civil Court by order, dated 20.02.2008 permitted him to make construction in his own site after restoring the compound wall belonging to respondent No.3. The petitioner alleged that while he started the work to construct his house and the compound wall belonging to respondent No.3, the latter trespassed into his property, demolished the pillars on 13.05.2009 and threatened the labour. He allegedly made a complaint before respondent No.2, who registered the same as Crime No.41 of 2008 but no further action was taken thereon. He further alleged that at the instance of respondent No.3, respondent No.2 is obstructing the construction of his house contrary to the order passed by the Civil Court. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, on instructions, stated that respondent No.2 has not been interfering with the petitioner’s construction activity. She also stated that after completion of investigation, respondent No.2 filed charge sheet against respondent No.3 in Crime No.41 of 2008. In view of the categorical stand of respondent No.2 that he is not interfering in the construction activity of the petitioner, no mandatory direction need be issued to him. However, if respondent No.2 causes any such interference in future, the petitioner shall be free to approach respondent No.1 with a complaint against respondent No.2 and in that event, respondent No.1 shall take appropriate action against the former. With the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of main petition, WPMP.No.15978 of 2009 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 9th JULY, 2009. kvni