IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF APRIL, TWO THOUSAND TEN PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.5707 of 2010 Between: Makineni Amruthavalli & others. … Petitioners And State of A.P., rep., by its Principal Secretary to Home Department, Hyderabad & others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioners: Sri S. Verriyya for Sri Nimmagadda Satyanarayana Counsel for the respondents: AGP for Home This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.5707 of 2010 ORDER:- This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of respondent Nos.2 to 4 in insisting on the petitioners to give up their passage claim and withdraw the suit in O.S.No.127 of 2010 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Ongole, as illegal and unconstitutional. The petitioner sought for a consequential direction to the respondents not to interfere with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the passage and site situated in Sy.Nos.243 and 250 of Ongole Town Limits, Prakasam District. I have heard Sri S. Verriyya representing Sri Nimmagadda Satyanarayana, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home for the respondents. The petitioners have pleaded that petitioner No.1 is the absolute owner and possessor of house and vacant site admeasuring 5040 square feet or 468.23 square meters comprised in Sy.Nos.243 and 250 of Ongole Town limits having purchased the same under registered sale deed dated 22.09.1969 from her vendors. Petitioner No.3 is claimed to have purchased the passage site of 15’ width to reach his property, that petitioner No.1 was inducted into the possession of the said property on 22.09.1969 and that she claims to be in possession and enjoyment of the said property since then. The petitioners further pleaded that on 04.11.2009, petitioner No.3 applied to the Ongole Municipality for deputing surveyor requesting to undertake survey and decide boundaries to the said passage and that on 02.02.2010, the Town Surveyor of Ongole Municipality reported that one Lakkireddy Venkata Reddy encroached into his passage to the extent of 15’ and the Ongole Municipality issued an endorsement to that effect on 03.02.2010. The petitioners alleged that the said encroacher, using his political influence, mounted pressure on respondent Nos.2 to 4 to help him to construct a wall in order to block the passage. Petitioner No.3 filed O.S.No.127 of 2010 in the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Ongole against the said encroacher and that on the same day on which the said suit was filed, respondent Nos.3 and 4 got constructed the wall across the 15’ passage blocking the way to the site of petitioner No.3. The petitioners alleged that respondent Nos.2 to 4 conspired with the encroacher in raising a wall and thereby interfered in the civil disputes. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Ongole Taluk Police Station, Prakasam District, respondent No.4, filed a counter affidavit, wherein h e inter alia denied the allegation of police interference in the civil disputes. He stated that Lakkireddy Venkata Reddy, the alleged encroacher, lodged complaint on 22.02.2010 in his police station stating that on 14.02.2010 in the midnight the petitioners trespassed into his site with criminal intention and demolished the compound wall, bathroom, latrine and mango trees by using excavator machines by threatening him. On the basis of the said complaint, Crime No.53 of 2010 has been registered for the offences under Sections 447, 427 and 506 read with 34 IPC on 22.02.2010 against the petitioners showing them as A1 to A3 and the case is being investigated into. He further stated that on 01.03.2010, A2 has been arrested and A1 and A3 (petitioner Nos.1 and 3) are absconding and that necessary steps are being taken to arrest them. Respondent No.4 denied his interference in the civil disputes and further stated that as a part of his patrolling duty, he went to the site and dispersed the mob, who gathered there, after making entry in the general diary. Having regard to the facts referred to above, it is not possible for this Court to give a conclusive finding on the interference by the police in the civil disputes. Admittedly, the civil suit is pending and the parties have to workout their remedies therein. If the petitioners are stated to have committed an offence, the police can investigate into the same and file appropriate report/charge sheet in accordance with the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. However, in the guise of pendency of criminal case against the petitioners, the police cannot interfere in the civil disputes. In view of the categorical undertaking given by respondent No.4 that police are not interfering in the civil disputes, the same is placed on record and the writ petition is disposed of leaving the parties to workout their remedies regarding the civil disputes in appropriate Court of law. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, WPMP.No.7364 of 2010 filed by the petitioners for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. _____________________________ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 12.04.2010 ES