IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No: 17734 of 2005 BETWEEN: Sri Palla Anjaneyulu S/o. Appala Swamy, R/o. Veerammakunta Pedapadu Mandalam, West Godavari. ... PETITIONER AND 1 The Superintendent of Police, West Godavari District, Eluru-534 006. 2 The Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Eluru Sub Division, Eluru-534 002. 3 The Sub-Inspector of Police Pedapadu Police Station, Pedapadu Mandalam West Godavari District 4 Smt. Bhogaraju Venkata Lakshmi W/o. Sri Rajasekhar Venkatramana Press Road, Powerpeta, Eluru, W.G. District. 5 Smt. Bhogaraju Parvathi W/o. Sri B.V.N. Murthy C/o. Smt. Bhogaraju Venkata Laxmi, Venkatramana Press Road Powerpeta, Eluru, W.G. District. 6 Smt. Kotcharla Kota Indira W/o. Sri Krishna Murthy C/o. Smt. Bhogaraju Venkata Laxmi, Venkatramana Press Road Powerpeta, Eluru, W.G. District. 7 Sri Talluri Surya Venkata Rambabu S/o. Kodala Rao Representative, Powerpeta, Eluru, W.G.District-534 002. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the in action of the respondents 1 to 3 in interfering with the possession of petitioner in respect of an extent of Ac.33.51 cents in R.S.No.1293,1288,1289,1299,1300 and 1437 in Veerammakunta Village, Pedapadu Mandalam, Eluru, West Godavari District by summoning the petitioner under the pretext of settling the matter, which is purely civil in nature and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.K.RAMESH CHOWDARY Counsel for the Respondents 1 to 3: GP FOR HOME Counsel for the Respondent No.7: MR. K.V. SIMHADRI The Court made the following: ORDER: The allegations of the petitioner that the official respondents 1 to 3 are interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of his immovable properties have been denied stating that the police never interfered with the lands of the petitioner. 2. Having regard to the denial of the allegations in the counter filed on behalf of the respondents 1 to 3, I am of the opinion that the disputed questions of fact cannot be resolved in the writ petition. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________ V. ESWARAIAH, J July 3, 2008 DSK