IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.11627 of 2010 Between: J.V.S. Raju … Petitioner And Inspector of Police, Krishna Lanka, Vijayawada, Krishna District & others. … Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri P. Venkata Rama Sarma Sri Ch. Dhanamjaya Counsel for respondents 1-2: AGP for Home Counsel for respondent No.3: Smt. K. Annapurna Reddy The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.11627 of 2010 ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of respondent Nos.1 and 2 in seeking to interfere with the petitioner’s life and liberty regarding the civil disputes pertaining to his property bearing H.No.41-1-131, Ward No.10, Block No.10, NTS.No.301/B in Plot No.102 of Krishna Lanka within the limits of Vijayawada Municipal Corporation, as illegal and arbitrary. The averments contained in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition show that there is a serious civil dispute between the petitioner on the one side and respondent No.3 on the other with respect to the abovementioned property. The petitioner alleged that on respondent No.3 approaching, respondent Nos.1 and 2 made phone calls to him 3 or 4 times threatening him to come down to Vijayawada to settle the issue. The petitioner has further alleged that on 15.05.2010 at 9.30 p.m., he has received another phone call from a constable of Krishna Lanka Police Station asking him to come down to Vijayawada to settle the issue otherwise, he should face dire consequences. No counter affidavit is filed on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2. A counter affidavit is filed on behalf of respondent No.3. At the hearing, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, on instructions, submitted that in anticipation of registration of criminal case at the instance of respondent No.3, the petitioner filed the present writ petition and that neither of respondent Nos.1 and 2 has interfered in the civil disputes. Smt. K. Annapurna Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.3, submitted that the property has devolved on her client under a registered Will and that to deprive her client from enjoying the property, the petitioner has been indulging in vexatious litigation. As far as the dispute between the petitioner and respondent No.3 is concerned, it is not necessary for this Court to render any finding, as the scope of this writ petition is mainly confined to the alleged interference by respondent Nos.1 and 2 in the civil disputes between the petitioner and respondent No.3. In the light of the categorical assertion made by the learned Assistant Government Pleader that neither respondent Nos.1 and 2 had interfered in the civil disputes in the past nor they propose to interfere in future also, the writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to approach the Commissioner of Police, Vijayawada, if in future respondent Nos.1 and 2 attempt to interfere in the civil disputes. The petitioner is entitled to pursue his remedies in the competent civil Court with respect to the property in question. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, WPMP.No.14727 of 2010 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. __________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 26.07.2010. ES