M.Varadarajulu, v. The Inspector Of Police (Sho),

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD

FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA & THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND FIFTEEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No.7213 of 2015 BETWEEN M.Varadarajulu and another ... PETITIONERS AND The Inspector of Police (SHO), Police Station M.R.Palle, Tirupati, Chittoor District and others ...RESPONDENTS The Court made the following:

ORDER:

Heard.

2. Petitioners complain that respondent No.1 is repeatedly calling them, harassing them and forcing them to enter into settlement with respondent Nos.3 to 5 regarding the disputed property. Petitioners state that they have already filed O.S.No. 28 of 2014 before the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Tirupati against respondent Nos.3 to 5 for injunction and had obtained ad interim injunction on 16.02.2015, which is operating as on today. However, the repeated interference by respondent No.1 is questioned in this writ petition.

3. Instructions of the learned Government Pleader, however, show that one V.Gopal Reddy, who appears to have been described as respondent No.4 in this writ petition, filed a complaint on 17.02.2015 against the petitioners stating that petitioners have trespassed into Ac.1-50 cents of land in Survey No.13 at Tirupati besides Upparpalli Village. Based on the said complaint, respondent No.1 appears to have carried out a preliminary investigation and called both the parties on 17.02.2015 and after conducting enquiry he found that the dispute is purely of civil nature and directed both the parties to approach competent civil court. Hence, no action was taken on the complaint of said V.Gopal Reddy.

4. In view of the instructions, as above, that both the parties were directed to approach civil court and the police have not interfered in the matter, no further directions are called for in the writ petition.

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 April 6, 2015 Lmv