GUMPENAPALLI SULOCHANA Vs. TAHSILDAR MANDAL REVENUE OFFICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to set aside proceedings bearing Rc. No. B/542/2011, dated 05.05.2011, of respondent No. 2 and proceedings bearing Rc. No. B/542/2011, dated 12.07.2011, of respondent No. 1. By the first mentioned proceedings, respondent No. 2 has requested respondent No. 4 to take action in accordance with law while stating that respondent No. 9 holds title in respect of the land admeasuring Acs. 17.23 guntas in Survey Nos. 249/1 and 250 of Sarapaka Village, Burgampad Mandal, Khammam District. By the latter mentioned proceedings, respondent No. 1 has requested respondent No. 6 to provide police protection to respondent Nos. 9, 10, and 11. There is a heap of litigation between the petitioner on one side and respondent Nos. 9 to 16 on the other, with regard to the above-mentioned land.

(2.) For the present, it is unnecessary for this Court to refer to this litigation in detail. It will suffice to note that O.S. No. 116 of 2011 filed by the petitioner against the private respondents herein for permanent injunction is pending in the Court of the learned Special Assistant Agent, Mobile Court, Bhadrachalam. An injunction order was granted on 14.07.2011 and that the same was vacated on 04.06.2012. Questioning the said order, C.R.P. No. 2468 of 2012 filed by the petitioner is pending in this Court. The private respondents have filed O.S. No. 146 of 2011 against certain third parties for permanent injunction in the Court of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kothagudem and secured an order of injunction on 10.06.2011. In I.A. No. 243 of 2011 an order granting police protection was passed by the civil Court on 25.07.2011. In this background, the two impugned letters came to be issued by respondent Nos. 2 and 1 respectively.

(3.) There is a letter, dated 12.07.2011, addressed by respondent No. 2 to respondent No. 4, wherein this litigation in respect of the property in question is referred to some extent. Respondent No. 2 has inter alia stated in his letter as under: