HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.25878 of 2009 Dated: 05-07-2010 Between: Sarvasiddi Umamaheswara Rao. … Petitioner And State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary to Home Department & others. … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.25878 of 2009 ORDER: In this writ petition, it is the grievance of the petitioner that at the instance of respondent No.4, respondent No.3 is insisting to give up his interest, claim, title and possession with regard to open site admeasuring 1334 square yards, situated in Survey No.56/2/B/2 of Pothina Mallayyapalem village. It is the case of the petitioner that he is the owner and possessor of the property in question, having purchased it under a registered possessary agreement of sale-cum-general power of attorney, dated 30.05.2009, from its previous owner and is possession of the same. But, at the instance of respondent No.4, there is interference by respondent No.3 in the civil dispute, and is insisting to forego his claim in the property. No counter affidavit is filed by the respondents, but based on the written instructions, dated 4th December 2009, it is submitted by the learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents that there is a complaint by respondent No.4 to the Commissioner of Police, Visakhapatnam on 02.11.2009, stating that she owned site to an extent of 28 Cents in Survey No.56/2 at Pothinamallayyapalem and the said land was fenced around, by erecting a board. It is stated that subsequently, her cousin offered to sell her land to the petitioner, but the petitioner, by merely paying the advance amount, has removed the name board illegally. It is stated that such persons, who entered into agreement, threatened the 4th respondent, and therefore, she sought for taking necessary action. It is stated that after examining the complaint, the respondent-Police have inquired into the matter and verified the relevant documents of both parties and as it was found that the matter is of civil nature, both the parties are advised to approach the competent Civil Court. It is further stated that there is no interference in the civil dispute, as alleged by the petitioner. In view of the complaint made by respondent No.4, it is always open for the respondent-Police to look into the matter, but merely because the complaint is verified and investigated, the same cannot be treated as interference with the right of the petitioner over the property in question. In any event, as it is stated that on examining the complaint, the respondent authorities found that the matter is of civil nature and hence advised the parties to approach the Civil Court, I dispose of the writ petition, placing on record the statement of respondent-Police that there is no interference in the civil dispute. No order as to costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 5th July 2010 ajr