The Hon'ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy Writ Petition No.1060 of 2011 Date: 9th November, 2011 Between: Sri Pallepu Ramana Rao ..... Petitioner and 1.The Additional Agent to Government & Project Officer, ITDA, Bhadrachalam, Khammam District and 4 others. .....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr.MMM.Srinivasa Rao Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3: GP for Social Welfare Counsel for respondent No.4: ----- Counsel for respondent No.5: Mr.G.N.Raju for Mr.Palivela Satyaraja Babu The Court made the following : O R D E R: The grievance of the petitioner, whose revision petition is pending before the Government against the order of his eviction, dated 02-01-2010, in CMA.No.2 of 2009, is that despite Order, dated 17-02-2010 in WPNo.3361 of 2010, directing respondent No.1 not to give effect to the said eviction order till disposal of the revision petition, respondent No.1 has issued proceedings, dated 18-01-2011, requesting respondent No.3- Tahsildar, Pinapaka Mandal, Khammam District, to address the Station House Officer, Edulla Bayyaram, to provide police protection to respondent No.5 and register a criminal case against him. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the said proceeding, issued by respondent No.1, is in the teeth of Order, dated 17-02-2010, in WP.No.3361 of 2010. A perusal of Order, dated 17-02-2010, in WP.No.3361 of 2010 would show that, while directing the Government to dispose of the revision petition, filed by the petitioner against Order, dated 02-01-2010 in CMA.No.2 of 2009, of respondent No.1, within a period of three months, the respondents therein were directed not to give effect to the Order under revision. The impugned proceedings, dated 18-02- 2010 of respondent No.1, show that a day prior to the passing of the Order in W.P.No.3361 of 2010 by this Court i.e., on 16-02-2010, possession was handed over to respondent No.5 under a Panchanama. Respondent No.1, therefore, requested respondent No.3 that Police Protection be given to respondent No.5. In my opinion, by making such a request, respondent No.1 has ignored the Order of this Court, passed in WP.No.3361 of 2010, even though a reference of the same has been made in the said proceeding. While the petitioner disputes handing over of physical possession, even assuming that physical possession was handed over to respondent No.5, in the face of the direction given by this Court not to give effect to Order, dated 02-01-2010 in CMA.No.2 of 2009, by which the petitioner was directed to be evicted, respondent No.1 ought not to have issued the impugned proceeding for providing police protection to respondent No.5. Such an act constitutes overreaching the order of this Court. On the premises as above, the impugned proceedings, dated 18-02-2010, of respondent No.1, to the extent of directing issuance of Police Protection to respondent No.5 and registering a criminal case against the petitioner, is set aside. In view of the dispute relating to physical possession of the subject prooperty, status quo obtaining as on today shall be maintained with respect to the physical possession, notwithstanding the purported panchanama, till disposal of the revision petition by the Government. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. As a sequel, WPMP.Nos.1292 and 1293 of 2011 are disposed of. ______________________ (C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J) 9th November, 2011 LUR