IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.32192 of 2010 BETWEEN Pathlavath Harya. ... PETITIONER AND The Circle Inspector of Police, Amangal Circle, Mahabubnagar District and three others. ...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: MR. K. SREENIVAS Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following order: ORDER: This writ petition is filed with the prayer, which reads as under: “For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, it is therefore prayed that the Honourable Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or Direction particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the Respondent Nos.1 & 2 in interfering with the civil dispute in connection with land in S.No.75/A Extent Ac.1-00 situated at Ramnunthala Village of Amangal Mandal, Mahabubnagar District, forcing the petitioner to vacate the said land by summoning him to the Police Station, as arbitrary, unjust, unconstitutional, against the principles of natural justice, illegal and void and consequently direct the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 not to summon the petitioner and his family members to the police station in connection with the said civil dispute pending between the petitioner and the 4th respondent in respect of the said land S.No.75/A Extent Ac.1-00 and pass such other order or orders as the Honourable Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice.” 2. Petitioner claims title and ownership of the land in Sy.No.75/A in an extent Ac.1-00 situated at Ramnunthala Village of Amangal Mandal, Mahabubnagar District. Petitioner purchased the aforesaid land from the father of the fourth respondent vide registered document bearing No.684/1984 dated 07.02.1984 and since then he has been in continuous possession. It is the case of the petitioner that the fourth respondent, who is the daughter of the petitioner’s vendor, has filed a collusive suit being O.S.No.33 of 2008 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Kalwakurthy and approached respondents 1 and 2 for claiming possession of the aforesaid land. It is the grievance of the petitioner that though he is the rightful owner and possessor of the aforesaid land, respondents 1 and 2 are interfering with his possession and frequently visiting the petitioner and directing him to vacate the land in question. Precisely, it is the grievance of the petitioner that in view of the civil nature of the dispute between the petitioner and the fourth respondent, the respondent – police cannot interfere in the matter. 3. The matter has come up earlier and it was adjourned to enable the learned Government Pleader for Home to obtain instructions. Based on the written instructions sent by the Station House Officer, Amangal Police Station, it is submitted by the learned Government Pleader that the fourth respondent has lodged a complaint on 10.09.2010 stating that on 10.09.2010 when she and her husband were fixing up the stone pillars to the aforesaid land, the petitioner herein and four others have trespassed into the land and damaged the boundary stones using filthy language and beat her husband and as such, she requested to take necessary action. Based on the said complaint, a case in Cr.No.143 of 2010 for the offence under Sections 447, 427 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code was registered in which petitioner herein is A1 and others are A2 to A5. With reference to the aforesaid crime, the petitioner and others were arrested on 15.09.2010 and a final report is also filed before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kalwakurthy and the same is pending. It is further submitted that the respondents never asked the petitioner to vacate the land in question by calling him to the police station on 13.12.2010 or any other date. 4. Though there is allegation of interference by the respondents, in view of the registration of crime against the petitioner and others in Cr.No.143 of 2010, it is the duty of the police to investigate the same and as such, the investigation cannot be termed as interference. In any event, as it is stated that the respondents have never asked the petitioner to vacate the land by calling him to the police station on 13.12.2010 or any other date, I deem it appropriate to place on record the statement of the learned Government Pleader that the respondents have never asked the petitioner to vacate the land and that he has not been called to the police station at any point of time. Subject to the above, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J January 19, 2011 DSK