IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY MONDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OFAPRIL, TWO THOUSAND EIGHT ONLY WRIT PETITION No.27583 of 2007 Between: Kallam Venkata Reddy. … Petitioner And The Station House Officer, Thadepally P.S., Thadepally Mandal, Guntur District and seven others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioners: Sri B.Chinnapa Reddy. Counsel for the respondents: AGP for Home for R.1 and R.2. Sri A.Rajendra Babu for R.5. This Court made the following: ORDER:- This Writ Petition is filed for a Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of respondents 1 to 4 in aiding respondents 6 to 8 in interfering with the petitioner’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property, which is the subject matter of an order of injunction in ATC No.4 of 2007 on the file of the Special Officer under A.P (Andhra Area) Tenancy Act, 1956, as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional. Heard Sri B.Chinnapa Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner; the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home; and Sri A.Rajendra Babu, learned counsel representing respondent No.5. At the hearing, all the learned counsel agreed that there are disputes between the petitioner on one side and respondents 5 to 8 on the other with respect to the property, which is the subject matter of ATC No.4 of 2007 and that the petitioner is in possession of the said property on the strength of the injunction order granted by the said Court. While the petitioner alleged that respondents 5 to 8 are seeking to interfere with the possession of the said property with the aid of Police, all the respondents denied the said allegation. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Thadepally Police Station (respondent No.1 herein), in his counter-affidavit stated that respondent No.5 lodged a complaint on 15-11-2007 alleging that the petitioner along with his brother-Panakala Reddy, wife-Lakshmikanthamma, daughter-D.Radha and Raja Sekhar Reddy s/o.Panakala Reddy illegally entered into an extent of Ac.3.40 cents of land, removed the markings on the same and were squatting on the said property; that on receipt of the same an entry was made in the Reception Register and General Diary on 16-11-2007; and that he advised respondent No.5 to settle the said dispute in a competent civil Court, since it is purely civil in nature. He also denied the allegation that respondents 1 to 4 are acting as per the wishes of respondents 6 to 8 and that the answering respondent never interfered in the civil dispute nor threatened the petitioner to vacate the aforesaid land in future. In view of the stand taken by the respondents, as mentioned above, the Writ Petition is disposed of as infructuous with liberty to avail his remedies, if his possession is threatened by the respondents in an unlawful manner. As a sequel to disposal of the main Writ Petition, all the WPMPs., are dismissed as infructuous. ------------------------------------ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J 28-4-2008 MNR