THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.21446 of 2011 Dated 26th August, 2011 Between: Macherla Kalpana and another …Petitioners And The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Secretary, Municipal Administration, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others …Respondents Counsel for the petitioners: Sri N.Ravi Prasad Counsel for respondent No.1: AGP for Municipal Administration Counsel for respondent Nos.2 & 7: AGP for Home Counsel for respondent Nos.3, 5 & 6: AGP for Revenue Counsel for respondent No.4: Mrs.Beena For Sri Nageswara Reddy Counsel for respondent No.8: Sri Subba Rao Korrapati Counsel for respondent No.10: Sri Naga Praveen Vankayalapati The Court made the following: ORDER: This writ petition is filed for multiple reliefs and the sum and substance of these reliefs is that respondent No.4 is seeking to mutate the name of respondent No.8 in the municipal records pertaining to the property bearing D.No.23-6-42 in T.S.No.483/3, Survey No.296/4 of Chintalathopu, Chirala and that respondent Nos.6 and 7 have been causing undue interference with the petitioners’ possession of the property in question. In the manner in which the writ petition is proposed to be disposed of, it is unnecessary to record detailed facts. It will suffice to note that the petitioners on the one side and respondent Nos.8 to 10 on the other are fighting over the above-mentioned property. The vendors of both the parties are common. The father of respondent No.8 filed O.S.No.320 of 1982 for specific performance of an agreement of sale in respect of Ac.0.19 cents of property. The learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Chirala has executed sale deed, dated 17.09.2009, in favour of respondent No.8 and her sisters in pursuance of the judgment and decree for specific performance of the agreement of sale. According to respondent No.8, the possession of the property was handed over through Court on 18.11.2009 and thereafter, her sisters executed registered gift deed, dated 04.02.2010, in her favour. The petitioners filed O.S.No.193 of 2011 in the Court of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Chirala for permanent injunction against respondent Nos.8 to 10 and that the said suit is pending. In this factual background, the petitioners alleged that respondent No.8 has approached respondent No.4 with an application for mutation of her name in the municipal records and they anticipate that without notice to them and without following due procedure, respondent No.4 is likely to mutate the name of respondent No.8 in the municipal records. As regards the grievance of the petitioners against respondent Nos.6 and 7, both these respondents are allegedly interfering with the petitioners’ possession at the instance of respondent No.8. Respondent Nos.4 and 8 filed separate counter affidavits. In his counter affidavit, respondent No.4 has stated that he has nothing to do with the disputes between the petitioners and respondent No.8, that respondent No.8 has submitted an application on 02.05.2011 for mutation of her name in the municipal records with respect of Ac.0.19 cents of land in T.S.No.489/3, R.S.No.296/4, T.S.Block No.5, Ward No.7 of Chirala Municipality, that as the names of Kolla Sobha Rani and others are already recorded in the tax registers, notice, dated 17.06.2010, was given to them to submit their objections, if any, on the said application and that accordingly, the said persons have submitted their applications on 06.07.2011, apart from sending legal notice, dated 16.07.2011, requesting not to mutate the name of respondent No.8 in the municipal records. Respondent No.4 has further stated that as per Rule 3 of Alteration of Ownership of Property in Assessment Books Rules, 1966, he has issued notice, dated 17.06.2011, and that appropriate action will be taken in accordance with Rule 5 of the said Rules. Respondent No.8 filed a detailed counter affidavit, wherein she has referred to the background of the case leading to execution of the sale deed by the Court in her favour and her sisters, including execution of gift deed in her favour by her sisters. She further stated that when the petitioners were unduly interfering with her possession, they sought the help of respondent Nos.6 and 7. No counter affidavits have been filed on behalf of other respondents. As regards the grievance of the petitioners against respondent No.4, as the latter has clarified the position in his counter affidavit to the effect that no decision has been taken so far and that he will take appropriate decision in accordance with law after considering the objections of the petitioners’ vendors, the grievance, if any, the petitioners had when they have filed the writ petition ceases to exist. With regard to the grievance against respondent Nos.6 and 7, they have no role to play in the civil disputes between the petitioners and respondent Nos.8 to 10. Respondent No.6 as an Executive Magistrate is vested with certain powers to prevent breach of public peace arising in respect of an immovable property. So long as such powers are not invoked, he cannot meddle or interfere with the civil disputes between the private parties. Similar is the role of respondent No.7. Unless any criminal case is registered in connection with the dispute over the immovable property or he is directed by a decree or order of a Court of competent jurisdiction to cause such interference, he also cannot intervene in the civil disputes between the petitioners and respondent Nos.8 to 10. If the petitioners feel aggrieved by any such interference in future, they shall be free to avail appropriate remedy in accordance with law. Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.26099 of 2011 is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 26th August, 2011 VGB