THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT APPEAL No.179 of 2010 Dated:02.08.2010 Between: Sri A.Narayan Reddy, And another. …Appellants and Mandala Hemalatha, And others. …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT APPEAL No.179 of 2010 JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice V.V.S.Rao) The first respondent filed the main writ petition assailing the order of the second respondent dated 16.06.2009 under Section 9 of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (ROR Act). By the said order, the second respondent, while observing that the civil dispute regarding the title had to be resolved by the parties in the appropriate forum, namely Civil Court, gave a direction to the fourth respondent to revert back the favourable entries of the petitioner in favour of the appellants herein. While admitting the writ petition, the learned single Judge suspended the order of the Joint Collector. It appears, after receiving the suspension order, the fourth respondent restored back the entries in favour of the first respondent/writ petitioner. When the appellants moved an application for vacating the ex parte order of suspension of the order impugned in the writ petition, the learned Judge, having noticed the fait accompli, dismissed the appellants’ application, aggrieved by which the instant writ appeal is filed. The order was passed by the learned Judge exercising discretion having regard to the factual background. Therefore, we are not inclined to interfere in the impugned order. Counsel for the appellants, however, submits that there is a threat of dispossession by the first respondent as well as Police and Revenue Officials. It is needless to mention that the provisions of the ROR Act or Rules made thereunder do not empower any Revenue Official or Police Official to interfere with the possession of a person, if such person is in possession, or put back a person in possession, who is not in possession. Repeatedly the Apex Court and this Court have pointed out that when there is a serious dispute regarding title, Police have no say in the matter, unless a cognizable offence under Section 447 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, is registered. Even in such a case, the matter is only for investigation and not to dispossess a possessor and put in possession any other person. These observations would be sufficient to dispel any apprehension in the mind of the appellants as well as the first respondent. The Writ Appeal, with the above observations, is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) ______________________________ (RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J) 02.08.2010 vs