IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THRUSDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY, TWO THOUSAND TEN PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.13167 of 2002 Between: Hindustan Shipyard Staff Co-operative Building Society. … Petitioner And District Collector, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District & others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Sri S. Rajan Counsel for respondents 1-4: AGP for Revenue Counsel for respondents 5-9: None This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.13167 of 2002 ORDER:- This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare communication dated 10/12.05.2002 issued by respondent No.1 to respondent No.4, initiation of consequential proceedings by respondent No.4 and report of respondent No.3 submitted to respondent No.2, as illegal and without jurisdiction. Heard Sri S. Rajan, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue for respondent Nos.1 to 4. No one appeared for respondent Nos.5 to 9. The dispute pertains to the property forming part of Ac.19.50 cents in New Sy.No.7/4A of Narava Village, Visakhapatnam. The petitioner, which is a Co-operative Building Society, holds as many as 14 registered sale deeds in respect of the said property. Respondent Nos.5 to 9, who filed O.S.No.418 of 1998 against the petitioner in respect of a part of the said land, evidently approached respondent No.1 and on the latter’s reference, respondent No.3 seemed to have taken up the task of examining the title of the parties. Respondent Nos.3 and 4 did not appear to have been deterred by the repeated representations of the petitioner that the dispute falls outside the scope of power and their jurisdiction to examine as to which party has got better title, as the same falls in the realm of civil dispute which requires to be adjudicated only by the competent civil Court. Indeed, the petitioner subsequently brought to the notice of respondent Nos.3 and 4 that a civil suit filed by respondent Nos.5 to 9 is pending. In spite of that, some reports including report dated 21.02.2002 were submitted by respondent No.3 to respondent No.2. Anticipating further action, the petitioner filed this writ petition. This Court felt that respondent No.4 was interfering with the administration of justice by calling upon the petitioner to prove its title and accordingly granted interim order apart from summoning her to be present in the Court. Having realized her folly, respondent No.4 filed a counter affidavit, wherein it is stated as under: “After coming to know that the matter is pending before the Civil Court, I have not proceeded for further enquiry. It is further submitted that before the civil Court, the Government has not impleaded as party respondent. It is only between the respondents 5 to 9 and the petitioner herein. The enquiry has been started on the grievance petition filed by the respondent No.5 herein. The fact of civil Court order was brought to my notice only on 11.07.2002. Immediately, after notice of the pendency of the suit, I stopped to proceed further in the matter.” The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that after filing of the abovementioned counter affidavit, the respondents are not interfering. It hardly needs any emphasis that it is not the function of the executive apparatus of the State including respondent Nos.1 to 4 to interfere in civil disputes regarding title of the properties between two private parties. Unless adjudication of competing claims falls within their statutory powers under the provisions of the extant enactments, the parties should be left free to agitate their rights over the ownership of the properties and the ancillary disputes relating thereto before the competent civil Court. Even though, at one stage, the petitioner brought it to the notice of respondent Nos.3 and 4 that a civil suit filed by respondent Nos.5 to 9 was, in fact, pending, they have proceeded with examining the title of the parties by summoning them and sending reports to the superior authorities. Such an action is wholly unwarranted in law and falls outside the brief of the official respondents. In this view of the matter, it is declared that the reports and correspondence sent by respondent Nos.3 and 4 to the superior authorities in connection with the above dispute between the petitioner on the one side and respondent Nos.5 to 9 on the other have no validity in law and consequently they are not enforceable. Since respondent No.4 has categorically stated in her counter affidavit that after coming to know about the pendency of the civil suit, she has stopped all further proceedings, no further direction need be issued in this regard. Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, WPMP.No.16360 of 2002 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. _____________________________ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 11.02.2010 ES