THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.7741 of 2010 Date:26.07.2010 Between: Pasupuleti Peda Malakondaiah. ..... Petitioner AND The Superintendent of Police, Ongole and others. .....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri N. Ravi Prasad Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 and 2: Assistant Government Pleader for Home Counsel for Respondent No.3: -- The Court made the following: ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the inaction of respondent Nos.1 and 2 in taking proper action on the complaints dated 29.12.2009 and 07.01.2010 made by the petitioner to protect his property as illegal and arbitrary. I have heard Sri N. Ravi Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home. The petitioner claims to be the purchaser of the property admeasuring Acs.8.00 in survey No.146/3 having purchased under a registered document in the year 1987. He averred that a group of persons claiming to be holding pattas have filed W.P.No.452 of 2010 in this Court which was disposed of, by order dated 20.01.2010, with the direction to the Revenue Officials and some private parties not to interfere with their possession and enjoyment as long as the pattas stated to have been granted in their favour are in force. That bolstered by the said order, the said persons have been causing interference with the petitioner’s possession and enjoyment of the said property and that in order to protect his possession, the petitioner made representations dated 29.12.2009 and 07.01.2010 to the Sub-Inspector of Police, Ongole and respondent No.1 respectively, to prevent the said persons from interfering with his property. Alleging that no action was taken on the said representations, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. No counter-affidavit is filed on behalf of any of the respondents. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, on instructions, stated that the complaints of the petitioner were forwarded to respondent No.2 on 09.01.2010 and a G.D. entry was made on the same day and that preliminary enquiries made by respondent No.2 revealed that there are serious disputes between the petitioner on the one side and the petitioners in W.P.No.452 of 2010 and others on the other side over the abovementioned property, and therefore, the respondents are not interfering with the said disputes which are purely civil in nature. The facts noted above would disclose that no specific act constituting an offence was reported to respondent Nos.1 and 2. Even in the representations made by the petitioner, he has stated that certain persons named therein have formed into unlawful assembly and tried to grab his property with force by creating false documents. The tenor of these representations shows that there is a fight between two parties over an immovable property. Therefore, it is the civil Court which is competent to decide the said dispute and pass appropriate orders/decree. Unless the civil Court recognises the right of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders, the Police are not expected to interfere with such civil disputes. Therefore, non- registration of a criminal case or interference by Police with the dispute between the petitioner and the third parties, on the facts and circumstances of the case, cannot be termed either as illegal or arbitrary. The writ petition is, therefore, without any merit and the same is accordingly dismissed. The petitioner is entitled to pursue his civil remedies before the competent Court to protect his possession. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.9954 of 2010 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. ________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 26th July, 2010 GHN