IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 22991 of 2008 Between: Buragadda Veeraswamy Naidu S/o. Lat Veeraraghavaiah R/o. Khandepalli Post, Chodavaram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District. 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam 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 to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not taking any action on the representations dt. 23.05.2005 and 10.05.2008 as illegal, arbitrary, unjust and consequently direct the respondents to take action pursuant to the above representations and to grant such other relief or reliefs Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.SRIKANTH KAVETI Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : ORDER: The petitioner claims to be the absolute owner and possessor of agricultural land admeasuring Ac.19.38 cents covered by Sy.No.92/2 of Chikkapalli Village, Chedikada Mandalam, Visakhapatnam having purchased the same under registered sale deed dated 30.11.2002. Subsequent to his purchase, pattadar pass books and title deeds were also issued in his favour by the revenue authorities. While the matters stood thus, the neighbouring land owners in order to grab the said land are interfering with his possession and enjoyment of the said land and in that connection a police complaint was also lodged by himself as well as by the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer before the Chedikada Police Station. It is stated the petitioner has also made a representation on 23.5.2005 to the 2nd respondent – Revenue Divisional Oﬃcer, Visakhapatnam requesting him to take action against the land grabbers and also to permit him to do cultivation in the land by providing protection from the neighbourers and their henchmen. The grievance of the petitioner is that though the 2nd respondent has received his complaint, no action has been initiated by him so far and taking advantage of the situation, the neighbourers are again trying to interfere with his possession of the land. Hence this writ petition seeking appropriate orders. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue and at their request the writ petition is taken up for ﬁnal disposal at the admission stage itself. Even according to the petitioner, pursuant to his representation, the Tahsildar and other revenue authorities have negotiated with the parties and an enquiry was also conducted and the matter is pending before the authorities. Prima facie, the dispute appears to be between the petitioner and his neighbourers. Therefore, this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot go into the matter and decide the civil disputes between the petitioner and third parties. However, since the main allegation of the petitioner is that the neighbourers and their henchmen are not allowing him to do cultivation and the authorities though initially conducted some enquiry have not taken any further action, if there is any law and order problem for not allowing the petitioner to do cultivation, it is open for the authorities to reconsider the representation of the petitioner by taking into consideration his claim as also the claims of unoﬃcial respondents and take necessary action. With the above observation, the writ petition is disposed of. N.V.RAMANA,J Dt.3.11.2008 msv