HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.21487 of 2009 ORDER: In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus to declare the action of the respondents 2 and 3 in encouraging unofficial respondents 4 to 8 for dispossessing him from the land bearing Nos. 607/1, 607/2, 609/11, 609/12 and 609/13 admeasuring Acs.9.61 cents situated at Konapalli Village, Bestavaripeta Mandal,Prakasam District, as illegal and arbitrary. Even according to the petitioner, the land in question was an assigned land. Petitioner claimed title over the said land having purchased the same by way of registered sale deed. The only grievance of the petitioner in this writ petition is that at the instance of the unofficial respondents, a false case has been registered against the petitioner in Crime No. 58 of 2000 on the file of the Station House Officer, Besthavaripet Police Station. However, through order dated 21.2.2005, the Special Court acquitted him. In spite of the same, the respondents 2 and 3 were interfering with the petitioner’s possession over the land in question and instigating respondents 4 to 8 to dispossess him. A counter affidavit is filed by the respondent No.3 stating that respondents 2 and 3 are not interfering with the petitioner’s possession and no case is registered against the petitioner, inasmuch as, in Crime No.58 of 2000, in which the petitioner was shown as accused, he was already acquitted by the Special Court through judgment dated 21.2.2005. In the counter affidavit, the respondent also specifically stated that the dispute between the petitioner and the unofficial respondents is civil in nature and there is no interference by the respondents 2 and 3 in the said dispute. On the other hand, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the unofficial respondents that though the said land is assigned to landless poor persons, the petitioner came into possession illegally and is trying to cultivate the land. They also disputed the sale in favour of the petitioner. The question as to whether the petitioner purchased the land in question or not and whether such purchase is in violation of Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 are all questions, which cannot be gone into in the present writ petition. Suffice it to state that the petitioner is in possession of the land in question, which is also admitted by the unofficial respondents 4 to 8. Since unofficial respondents 4 to 8 also claimed title and possession in respect of the very same property, they are at liberty to approach the competent Civil Court for redressal of their grievance. Admittedly, in the counter affidavit, the respondents 2 and 3 have clearly stated that they are not interfering with the possession of the petitioner over the land in question. It is necessary to extract the relevant portion of the counter affidavit, which reads thus: “I submit that the dispute between the petitioner as well as the unofficial respondent is purely civil in nature. This respondent never interfered with the civil disputes much less the dispute of the petitioner herein. I submit that this respondent is not the competent authority to dispossess the petitioner from the subject land.” In view of the specific stand taken by the respondents in the counter affidavit that they are not interfering with the possession of the petitioner and while placing the same on record, the writ petition is dismissed. However, all other questions are left open to be agitated before the appropriate forum. No costs. _____________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY,J Date: 1st July, 2010 Note: Furnish c.c. in one week B/o pnb