The Hon’ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy Writ Petition No.22339 of 2009 Dated 1st July, 2010 Between: Jakka Sinivasulu Reddy …Petitioner And The Station House Officer, Buchireddypalem Police Station and another. …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Mr.P.Gangaramireddy Counsel for the respondents: AGP for Home The Court made the following: Order: This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.1, in interfering in civil disputes pertaining to lands comprised in Survey Nos.81/A, 87/B and 79/D of Kalayakakagollu Village, Buchireddypalem Mandal, Nellore District, as illegal and arbitrary. I have heard Sri P.Gangarami Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioner, and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home representing the respondents. The petitioner on the one side and his father and his stepmother on the other side are engaged in a civil dispute over the lands situated in the above-mentioned survey numbers. A civil suit i.e., OS.No.130 of 2006, filed by the petitioner’s stepmother in the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kovur, is stated to be pending. When the petitioner’s father and stepmother allegedly sought to interfere with his possession, the petitioner is stated to have lodged a complaint on 14-09-2009 before respondent No.1. While alleging that no action was taken thereon, the petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition with the grievance that at the instance of his stepmother and father, respondent No.1 is interfering in civil disputes. A careful reading of the averments contained in the affidavit would reveal that the petitioner has not come out with specific allegations of interference against respondent No.1. In Paragraph 6, which is the only relevant Para in this regard, the petitioner pleaded that, having failed to get an order of injunction against him, his stepmother and father approached respondent No.1 and influenced him and that at their instance, respondent No.1 is not allowing the petitioner to enjoy his property. In my opinion, this Court will not entertain a Writ Petition containing such vague allegations. The time and the manner of interference by respondent No.1 have not been pleaded by the petitioner. Moreover, the petitioner failed to issue a notice to respondent No.1, to refrain from causing such illegal interference, which is a sine qua non for seeking a writ of Mandamus. For the above-mentioned reasons, the petitioner is not entitled to grant of any relief in this Writ Petition. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the Writ Petition, WPMP.No.29015 of 2009, filed by the petitioner for interim relief, is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 1st July, 2010 lur