IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 10934 of 2008 Between: N. Venkateswara Rao S/o Seshagiri Rao R/o D. No. 23-18-53, Haripuram, Rajahmundry E.G. District. ... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector, E.G. District at Kakinada. 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Rajahmundry, E.G. District, 3 The Tahsildar, Rajahmundry, E.G. District. 4 P. Murali Krishna S/o Sriram Murthy, R/o H. No. 48-39-10/2, Jayanthi Enclave NGGO Colony, Akkipalem, Visakhapatnam. 5 The Superintendent of Police, East Godavari District at Kakinada. 6 The Station House Officer, III Town Police Station, Rajahmundry. ...RESPONDENTS 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, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of mandamus declaring the impugned action of the respondents in interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property of the petitioner bearing H. No. 22-7-6, Veerabhadrapuram, Rajahmundry, E.G. District including the adjacent site existing within the premises by also declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in recording panchanama to hand over the possession to the 4th respondent without any provision of law and illegal, arbitrary and violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the 1st respondent to take action against 3rd respondent for acting illegally be recording panchanama in favour of the 4th respondent without due process of law for extraneous consideration and pass such other order or orders in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner: MREATHAKOTA VENKATA RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 10934 OF 2008 O R D E R: The petitioner claims to have purchased an extent of 150 sq.yards of land covered by a house, under sale deed, dated 8.5.2008, from one Mr.A. Sambasiva Rao, for a valuable consideration. He states that he has been delivered possession and is residing therein. His grievance is that the 4th respondent, who is employed as a Deputy Collector, is using his official clout and interfering with his possession. Reference is made to the various claims made by several persons, claiming through Smt.Toleti Udaya Lakshmamma. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Revenue and Home. Though the 4th respondent is in Government service, the interference complained against him is not in official capacity. Even according to the petitioner, the 4th respondent has some relation with the original owner. The question as to whether the 4th respondent, or any other persons, have derived any title for the land held by the original owner and the nature of such rights, can be determined, only in a properly instituted suit. The Civil Court would be better equipped to determine the disputed questions of fact, as well as the rights of the parties, before it. Therefore, the petitioner has to avail the remedy of a suit, to work out his rights. So far as the interference said to have been caused by the officials of Police and Revenue Departments is concerned, it needs to be observed that as long as there is no claim by the Government, vis-à- vis the land held by the petitioner, they cannot interfere with the same. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of, leaving it open to the petitioner to file a suit, to work out his remedies, and by directing that the officials of the Government Departments shall not interfere with the possession of the petitioner, except on the basis of any proceedings initiated under the relevant provisions of law. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________ 22nd May 2008 Note: Issue C.C. in three days. (B/o) PAN