IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No.4815 of 2005 Between: Gouru Venkateswarlu ..... PETITIONER AND Revenue Divisional Officer, Miryalaguda, Nalgonda District and 3 others .....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No.4815 of 2005 O R D E R: Heard. The petitioner questions the letter addressed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Miryalaguda dated 22.02.2005 in Letter No.B/3739/2004 to the Sub-Inspector of Police, Vemulapally P.S. directing the police to give protection to the pattedars-cum-enjoyers of the property in question till the receipt of the final orders in O.S.273/2004 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Miryalaguda. The petitioner submits that the revenue authorities have no right or authority to give police protection in respect of the property of private parties which is subject matter of a pending civil suit. It is stated that the petitioner and respondents Nos.3 and 4 are own brothers and the property in question is joint family property. The total extent of the land is Ac.12.20 gts in Sy.No.33 and 35 of Mundlapadu village, Vemulapally Mandal, Nalgonda District. The 3rd respondent filed suit in O.S.273/2004 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Miryalaguda for grant of perpetual injunction along with application for grant of temporary injunction and the injunction application in I.A.523/2004 was dismissed by order dated 14.12.2004. It is stated that the mother of the petitioner also filed O.S.118/2003 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Miryalaguda for partition and separate possession of her 1/4th share in the joint family property and the said suit was also pending. It is stated that the property in question is joint family property and none of the members of the joint family are entitled to seek injunction, as every member of the joint family has got right, interest and possession in respect of the undivided share. Therefore, in respect of a pending civil dispute before the Civil Court the revenue authorities are not entitled to interfere and give police protection. I am of the opinion that rights of the respective parties have not been finally decided either in the suit for partition or in the suit for injunction. When the temporary injunction application filed by Respondents No.3 itself was dismissed, there cannot be any justification on the part of the Revenue Divisional Officer requesting the Sub-Inspector of Police to give police protection to either of the parties. I am of the opinion that the impugned letter is illegal as the Revenue Divisional Officer have no power or authority to give police protection in respect of the disputed property which is the subject matter of pending suit. Therefore, the impugned order is set aside and the Writ Petition is allowed. No order as to costs. ________________ V.ESWARAIAH,J Dated: 24.03.2011 Dsr