IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 7421 of 2008 Between: Gudivada Lakshmu Naidu S/o.Late Thammi Naidu Hindu R/o.Gudivada Vedullavalasa(V) Garividi(M) Vizianagaram Dist ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Govt Of A.P Rep.by its Principal Secretary Home Department Secretariat Buildings Hyd 2 The Superindent Of Police Vizianagaram Dist 3 The Circle Inspector of Police Cheepurupalli Circle Circle Police Station Cheerpurpalli Vizianagaram Dist 4 The Station House Officer Garividi Police Station Garividi Vizianagaram Dist 5 Dalta Narayana Murthy Raju S/o.Late Appala Narisimha Raju, R/o.Vedullavalasa(V) Garividi(M) Vizianagaram Dist .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.A.SREEDHAR Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 to 4: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following : ORDER: This is yet another case of a citizen complaining about uncalled for and unlawful interference by the police (respondent Nos.3 and 4) with the property dispute between the petitioner and respondent No.5. The petitioner claimed that in respect of Ac.7.54 cents of land comprised in Survey No.189/1 of Vedullavalasa Village, Garividi Mandal, Vizianagaram District, disputes exist between himself and respondent No.5; that he filed O.S.No.39 of 2007 on the file of the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Cheepurupalli for declaration of title and injunction; that on 26.03.2007, the said Court granted interim injunction in I.A.No.196 of 2007. The petitioner further alleged that against order, dated 17.05.2007 passed in CMA.No.11 of 2007 filed by respondent No.5 on the file of the District Judge, Vizianagaram, he filed C.R.P.No.4427 of 2007 in this Court, which is stated to have granted an order of status quo on 29.10.2007. The grievance of the petitioner is that at the instance of respondent No.5, respondent Nos.3 and 4 have been unlawfully threatening the petitioner by calling him to the police station and not to enter into the property in question. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, I intend to dispose of the writ petition in the following terms: If the petitioner is not involved in any offence, respondent Nos.3 and 4 are not entitled to interfere with the personal life, liberty and property of the petitioner. Respondent Nos.3 and 4 are restrained from interfering with the property dispute in respect of the above-mentioned property, which is the subject matter of O.S.No.39 of 2007, unless and until a Court of competent jurisdiction required them to interfere in order to give effect to any order passed by it. Ordered accordingly. As a sequel to disposal of main petition, WPMP.No.9764 of 2008 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 4th APRIL, 2008 kvni