IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA & THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No. 34679 of 2014 BETWEEN B.Suseelamma AND ... PETITIONER The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary (Department of Revenue), A.P. Secretariat Building, Hyderabad and others.
...RESPONDENTS The Court made the following:
ORDER:
Heard.
2. Petitioner, who claims to be owner of D.No.6-4-518, Mangalavari Colony, Anantapur Post and Mandal, Anantapur District, made a complaint before the Superintendent of Police, Anantapur, alleging that police are interfering and pressuring her to vacate the premises at the instance of respondent Nos.5 and 6.
3. Instructions received by the learned Government Pleader from respondent No.3 show that the petitioner approached the police and on the complaint of unlawful interference by respondent Nos.5 and 6, a preliminary enquiry is accordingly conducted which reveal that a civil suit is pending between the petitioner and respondent Nos.5 and 6 viz., O.S.No.485 of 2014 before the Junior Civil Judge, Anantpur. It is stated that though the petitioner has instituted the aforesaid suit in view of the pendency of the same, her complaint of interference by respondent Nos.5 and 6 being a matter within the jurisdiction of the civil court, respondent Nos.3 and 4 have advised the parties to approach the civil court for reddressal of their grievance and that police have nothing to do with the civil litigation. The allegations of the petitioner against the respondent police are totally denied.
4. Since the petitioner has already invoked the jurisdiction of the competent civil court and the matter is already found to be of civil in nature, respondent Nos.3 and 4 have rightly not interfered with the civil dispute. Hence, the allegation of the petitioner for the alleged interference by the police being unsubstantiated, no further orders are necessary.
Writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J December 3, 2014 LMV