The Hon’ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy Writ Petition No.27452 of 2007 Dated 21st June, 2010 Between: Vadaganadham Sai Rajeswara Rao …Petitioner And The State of A.P., and 3 others …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Mr.M.Sree Rama Rao for Mr.Nimmagadda Satyanarayana Rao Counsel for the respondents: AGP for Home. The Court made the following: Order: At the interlocutory stage, the Writ Petition is taken up for hearing and disposal with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties. This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.3, in interfering in civil disputes between the petitioner and respondent No.4, as illegal and arbitrary. In his affidavit, the petitioner has traced his right over an extent of Ac.2-00 cents of land in Survey No.194 of Podili Revenue Village. For disposal of this Writ Petition, it is not necessary to refer in detail to the manner in which he is claiming title. It will suffice to note that in respect of the said land, there is a dispute between the petitioner and respondent No.4. While the petitioner claims that the title over the said property is vested in him, it is the case of respondent No.4 that the same is a Government property. Respondent No.4 issued proceedings under Section 144 (2) of Cr.P.C., in his capacity as a Mandal Executive Magistrate, on 12-01-2007 prohibiting illegal constructions or structures and directing to maintain status quo in respect of the land in question until further orders so as to protect the Government property and to avoid unauthorised illegal occupation thereof. The petitioner filed OS.No.9 of 2007 in the Court of the Junior Civil Judge, Podili, wherein respondent No.4 was impleaded as a defendant. The complaint of the petitioner, however, is that at the instance of respondent No.4, respondent Nos.2 and 3 have been interfering in the civil disputes. In my opinion, when a civil suit is pending between the petitioner and respondent No.4 with respect to the immovable property, ordinarily the Police shall not interfere unless they were so directed by the competent civil Court. It is not the pleaded case of respondent No.4 that the civil Court has issued any direction to the Police to interfere in the civil disputes. If respondent No.4 feels that the property, which he claims to belong to the Government, is not properly protected, he is entitled to seek appropriate orders from the civil Court in which the suit is pending. Unless the civil Court grants direction to the Police to interfere in civil disputes, respondent Nos.2 and 3 shall not cause such interference. Subject to the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, WPMP.No.35906 of 2007, filed by the petitioner for interim relief, is disposed of as infructous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 21st June, 2010 lur