HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.25539 of 2007 Dated: 08-02-2008 Between: Harijan Gattu Laxmi & others. … Petitioners And The Superintendent of Police, Mahabubnagar & another. … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.25539 of 2007 ORDER: In this writ petition, the petitioners seek directions by way of Mandamus to declare that the judgment and decree dated 05.09.2007 in A.S.No.19 of 2007 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Wanaparthy is not binding on the writ petitioners and further directions to the respondents not to interfere with their peaceful possession over the agricultural land admeasuring 6 Acres covered by Survey No.331 situated in Mojerla village of Pedda Mandadi Mandal, Mahabubnagar District. 2. It is the case of the petitioners that all the petitioners are landless poor persons and they were assigned one acre of land each, as per the Assignment Rules framed by the Government and they are in possession of totally 6 acres of land as stated above. It is submitted that though the said land was assigned earlier to some third parties, but as the said assignees have violated the conditions of grant of patta, their assignments were cancelled and subsequently the same land was assigned to the petitioners. It is submitted that there were disputes in between the third parties and the original assignees and same was subject matter of suit in O.S.No.115 of 2004 on the file of learned Junior Civil Judge, Wanaparthy, and the judgment and decree passed in that suit was confirmed in A.S.No.19 of 2007 by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Wanaparthy. It is the grievance of the petitioners that though they are not parties to the suit filed by the original assignees, but however, at their instance, the respondents-Police are interfering with their possession over the land in question and are instructing them to vacate the land allotted to them. 3. Counter affidavit is filed by the Inspector of Police, Kothakota Circle, Mahabubnagar under whose jurisdiction the 2nd respondent Police Station comes. While denying all the allegations levelled by the petitioners in the writ petition, it is specifically denied in the counter that on 20th of November 2007, the 2nd respondent called them to the Police Station and directed them to vacate the land in question. It is further stated that there is no complaint received against the petitioners and no case is registered against them and the 2nd respondent never summoned the petitioners to the Police Station. However, it is also stated that asmuch as the 2nd respondent is working under him as a Sub-Inspector, instructions were issued to him not to interfere with the civil disputes of the petitioners unless a specific complaint is received. 4. So far as directions to the extent of declaration as sought for in the writ petition with regard to the binding nature of judgment and decree dated 05.09.2007 in A.S.No.19 of 2007 is concerned, the said relief cannot be granted in this writ petition for the simple reason that parties to the said Appeal Suit are not made parties to this writ petition. But with regard to the interference as alleged in the writ petition, it is categorically denied by the Inspector of Police concerned in his counter affidavit that there is no interference by the Police with the possession of petitioners over the land in question and that the petitioners were never called to the Police Station, and even no complaint is lodged against the petitioners by any third parties. 5. In view of the averments made in the counter affidavit, it is clear that there is no interference by the Police with the possession of petitioners over the land in question. Therefore, no further adjudication is required on this allegation made by the petitioners. 6. For the reasons stated above, the writ petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 8th February 2008 ajr