IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA & THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No.32996 of 2014 BETWEEN M.Ranga Babu and others AND .. PETITIONERS The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Secretary and others ...RESPONDENTS The Court made the following:
ORDER:
Heard.
2. Petitioners allege that all of them are engaged in the business of aqua culture farming in an extent of Ac.2-00 in survey Nos.958/2 and 957/2 of Kovvali Revenue Village and they also claim to have purchased an additional extent of Ac.4-44 cents. While so, it is alleged that one Bandi Madhusudana Rao and others are every day coming to the petitioners’ land and threatening them to vacate the land leading to disturbance of peace and public tranquility. In view of that, petitioners state that they made a detailed representation, dated 15.09.2014 before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate-cum-Revenue Divisional Officer, Eluru and copies were also sent to the concerned police station, who is respondent No.5 herein. Alleging inaction, the present writ petition is filed.
3. Instructions received by the learned Government Pleader show that petitioners’ report was received by respondent No.5 by registered post on 18.09.2014 and after that he has called both the parties i.e., petitioners as well as the said Madhusudana Rao and others and conducted enquiry on 19.09.2014, who is also reported to have recorded the statements of both the parties. Since the dispute was stated to be of civil nature, both the parties were advised to maintain law and order and peace and tranquility at the disputed land. It is also stated that subsequently both the parties have reportedly settled their dispute amicably and in view that the police have no role to play in the civil dispute, which was existing between the petitioners and the said persons. The present writ petition, therefore, was opposed on the ground that police have nothing to do with the said dispute and it appears to have been filed as a precautionary measure to get over the complaint, if any, filed in future.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners does not dispute that enquiries were made from both the parties on 19.09.2014 by respondent No.5 and that the dispute was settled amicably. However, he submits that attempts are made for illegal interference.
5. In view of the statement aforesaid that respondent No.5 has enquired into the matter and since it was reported that the dispute is settled, in my view, no further orders be required. However, if there is any fresh dispute or disturbance on the land, petitioners are at liberty to approach respondent No.5 with an appropriate complaint/ representation, which shall be dealt with by respondent No.5 in accordance with law.
Writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J November 27, 2014 LMV