IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT: HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.9702 OF 2009 Between: Smt. Yenugupally Aruna ……Petitioner – B- Party AND The State of A.P., through Station House Officer, Sarpavaram Police Station, Rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad & 2 others .....Respondents HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.9702 OF 2009 ORDER: This Criminal Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is filed by the petitioner Smt. Yenugupally Aruna – B-Party seeking to quash the order dated 14-11-2009 in M.C. No.52 of 2009 in Crime Nos.130 and 131 of 2009, passed by the learned Mandal Executive Magistrate (Tahsildar), Kakinada – respondent No.3 herein. 2. Heard. 3. The dispute is with regard to the land in Survey No.144/2 of Ramanaiahpet Village, Kakinada (Rural), East Godavari District. The learned Executive Magistrate while discussing the merits of the case, observed that on the basis of the documents, he is of the opinion that respondent No.2 Karri Srinivas – A-Party was in possession of the land in dispute and therefore forbidden the petitioner from interfering with the possession of respondent No.2 till he is evicted from the same as per due process of law. Thus, the impugned order is based on the documents but not on the basis of factual position with regard to possession of the land in dispute. 4. A report of the Village Revenue Officer dated 27-05-2009 shows that the petitioner was in possession of the land in dispute. This report was issued by the Village Revenue Officer in implementing the orders of this Court in W.P. No.9329 of 2008 dated 25-04-2008 as survey was to be conducted with regard to the land in dispute in view of the orders of this Court in that writ petition. 5. Thus, the documents prima facie show the possession of respondent No.2, whereas the factual position with regard to possession of the land in dispute is of the petitioner as per the report of the Village Revenue Officer dated 27-05-2009. 6. In the circumstances, it is directed that both parties shall not enter the land in dispute until any of them obtain any appropriate order from the competent Civil Court. Till such time, possession of the land in dispute shall be with the Mandal Revenue Officer. 7. With the above directions, the Criminal Petition is disposed of. ____________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J February 3, 2010. PV