THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.2048 of 2011 ORDER: In this writ petition, petitioner seeks a mandamus declaring the action of respondents 1 and 2 in interfering with his possession over house property bearing No.19-5-18 situated at Kishan Bagh, Bahadurpura, Hyderabad, as illegal and arbitrary. It is the case of the petitioner that he has already approached the Andhra Pradesh Wakf Tribunal by filing O.S.No.51 of 2010 seeking injunction claiming that he is in possession of the suit schedule property and that the matter is pending there. It is the grievance of the petitioner that when the matter is seized up before the Tribunal, at the instance of the third respondent, respondents 1 and 2 are interfering with his possession and bent upon to damage his house property. On instructions, it is submitted by the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondents 1 and 2 that there was a complaint lodged by the third respondent on 21.01.2011 before the first respondent – Station House Officer, Bahadurpura Police Station, Hyderabad, stating that the petitioner trespassed into the property in question and damaged the same, and requested to take action. Based on the same, a case was registered in Crime No.11 of 2011 under Sections 448 and 341 IPC and the investigation is pending. It is further submitted that the petitioner filed a private complaint before the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, stating that on 21.02.2010, the third respondent and others abused him in filthy language and threatened him. There upon, it was referred to the police, who in turn, registered the same as a case in Crime No.32 of 2010 under Sections 324, 384, 447 and 506 IPC and the investigation is pending. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondents 1 and 2 while categorically denying that the first respondent visited the house of the petitioner on 21.01.2011 in the night hours as alleged, submitted that the police are investigating into the crimes registered in the aforesaid cases but they are not interfering with the civil dispute of the petitioner. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the third respondent submits that the third respondent is in possession of the aforesaid property, which belongs to the wakf, and when the petitioner tried to trespass into the same, a complaint was lodged by the third respondent and the petitioner is not in possession of the same. When the petitioner and the third respondent are claiming possession over the schedule property, it is not possible for this Court to record any finding whether the petitioner or the third respondent is in possession of the schedule property. As it is stated by the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondents 1 and 2 that the investigation is pending in Crime Nos.11 of 2011 and 32 of 2010, I deem it appropriate to direct respondents 1 and 2 not to interfere with the civil dispute between the petitioner and the third respondent with regard to schedule property, whoever is in possession of it, and at the same time, it is open to respondents 1 and 2 to conduct independent investigation with regard to aforesaid crimes and file final reports, in accordance with law. Subject to the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. _______________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 7th FEBRUARY, 2011. kvni