IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 9621 of 2008 Between: 1 Erugula Satyanarayana, S/o. Ramaswamy, R/o. D.No. 1-26, R/o. Kotha Harijanapeta, Thimmapuram (V), Kakinada Rural (M), East Godavari District. 2 Savaram Raju, S/o. Musalaiah, R/o. D.No. 1-10, R/o. Kotha Harijanapeta, Thimmapuram (V), Kakinada Rural (M), East Godavari District. .... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Station House Officer, Thimmapuram Police Station, Kakinada Rural (M), East Godavari District. 2 The Tahsildar, Kakinada Rural Mandal, Kakinada, East Godavari District. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioners:MR.JITHENDER RAO VEERAMALLA Counsel for the Respondents: AGP FOR HOME The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in calling the petitioners to the police station and threatening them to vacate agricultural lands to an extent of Ac.1.00 each comprised in Survey No.288/1A of Thimmapuram Village, Kakinada Rural (M), East Godavari District, as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional. The petitioners sought for a consequential direction to the respondents not to harass and force them to vacate the subject lands. The petitioners claim that they purchased Ac.1.00 each in the above mentioned survey number under simple sale deeds from their purported original owners. They alleged that they came to know that recently, respondent No.2 initiated certain proceedings at their back and cancelled the assignments said to have been issued in favour of the alleged assignees of the lands and passed resumption orders, but they, however, state that no such orders were served on them. The sole grievance of the petitioners in this writ petition is that respondent No.1 has been unduly interfering with the petitioners’ possession of the said lands by repeatedly calling them to the Police Station with a warning to them to vacate the said lands. They lament that such a conduct on the part of respondent No.1 is not permissible in law. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home and perused the record, I am of the view that unless respondent No.1 is directed by a Court of competent jurisdiction or an authority vested with the power to grant police aid to carryout lawful orders, if any passed against the petitioners, he has neither jurisdiction nor power to interfere in the dispute pertaining to the purported assigned lands. If the land is found to be an assigned land and sold in violation of the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfer) Act, 1977 or the terms and conditions of the assignment, respondent No.2 shall be free to take action against the petitioners in accordance with law. It is not permissible for respondent No.2 to exert pressure on respondent No.1 to unlawfully evict the petitioners from the land in question. Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of main petition, WPMP.No.12698 of 2008 filed by the petitioners for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 29th APRIL, 2008 kvni