Mr Boggarapu Narasimha Rao, v. The State Of Andhra Pradesh,

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM WRIT PETITION No.25820 OF 2017 Date 04.08.2017 Between:

Boggarapu Narasimha Rao.

... Petitioner AND The State of Andhra Pradesh rep. by its Principal Secretary, Home Department and others.

......Respondents

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM WRIT PETITION No.25820 of 2017 ORDER:

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Home (AP).

Petitioner claims to be owner and possessor of land admeasuring sq.

yards in R.S.No.195/7, Ibrahimpatnam Ferry Road, Krishna District having purchased from his vendor namely, Sri B.Shiva Rama Krishna Prasad, on 08.07.2015 who, in turn, purchased the subject land in the auction conducted by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada in O.S.No.1158 of 2004. Petitioner further states that, while he is in the process of construction after obtaining necessary permission from the panchayat authorities, respondent No.4, who is the original owner of the subject land, is interfering with his possession; and, at the behest of respondent No.4, respondent No.3 (Station House Officer, Ibrahimpatnam Police Station, Krishna District) had been calling him to the police station and insisting to settle the civil disputes. Hence the writ petition.

Learned Government Pleader for Home (AP) admits the fact that respondent No.3 had initially called the petitioner to the police station but, on coming to know the facts of the case, respondent No.3 had advised respondent

No.4 to take appropriate legal proceedings as it is civil matter. However, she denied calling the petitioner to the police station or harassing him in any manner. Having considered respective submissions and, on the specific assertion of the learned Government Pleader for Home that respondent No.3 is not interfering with the civil disputes between the petitioner and respondent No.4, the Writ Petition is closed. However, interference of respondent No.3 in civil matters would result in being prosecuted in his personal capacity. It is left open to the petitioner to seek appropriate civil remedies against respondent No.4, if he continues to interfere with the construction work. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand dismissed. No order as to costs.

___________________________ CHALLA KODANDA RAM,J Date: 04.08.2017 usd