THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.25305 of 2008 ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking a mandamus declaring action of the third respondent in interfering with the civil disputes as arbitrary and illegal. According to the petitioners, second petitioner is the absolute owner and possessor of House bearing No.24-136/4/37, admeasuring 300 sq.yards, situated at Vimala Devi Nagar, Malkajgiri Municipality, Ranga Reddy District, by virtue of a gift settlement, dated 29.12.2006 executed by her mother Smt. S.Kausalya, who acquired rights over the said property by virtue of an Agreement Of Sale-cum-General Power of Attorney, dated 04.10.1994 executed by one B.Harinath Reddy Son of late Ranga Reddy. Since then, she has been in possession and enjoyment of the same. There are few huts in the suit land. On 07.01.2007, when the previous owner B.Harinath Reddy and K.Ravi Raj interfered with their possession, they filed O.S.No.117 of 2007 before the learned Junior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar and the same is pending. The said B.Harinath Reddy sold out 312 sq.yards of land from out of the said property, which was purchased by the mother of the second petitioner, to one K.Ravi Raj. The said B.Harinath Reddy also filed O.S.No.211 of 2007 in February, 2007 before the learned II Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy at L.B.Nagar seeking cancellation of the gift deed executed by her mother in her favour. Both the suits are pending. While that being so, the said B.Harinath Reddy made a request to the third respondent to settle the dispute in his favour by threatening the petitioners. The third respondent sent police constables to her house on 05.11.2008 and called them to Police Station. As her husband was away on tour, on 10.11.2008, she went to Malkajgiri Police Station accompanied by their counsel Sri T.Laxmikanth, who in turn, informed the police that the matter is civil in nature and the two suits are pending. Therefore, no action needs to be taken by the police. However, third respondent again summoned petitioners to police station and on 14.11.2008, the petitioners went to Malkajgiri Police Station accompanied by the said advocate to meet the third respondent. The third respondent demanded that they should surrender 312 sq.yards of land to Mr.Ravi Raj or else the second petitioner would be implicated in a case of trespass under Section 341 IPC. Any amount of persuasion did not yield any results. Therefore, this writ petition. A detailed counter-affidavit has been filed by the respondents stating that B.Harinath Reddy Son of Ranga Reddy, Resident of H.No.13-89, Malkajgiri, Cyberabad, approached the third respondent on 17.11.2008 and lodged a complaint against the petitioners and the gist of it was that on 31.10.2008 at 10.30 a.m., when the complainant was constructing a compound wall, the persons named in the complaint tried to grab his property situated at Sy.Nos.518, 522, 523 and 524, in an extent of Acs.4.11 guntas, which was inherited by him through his ancestors, threatened his labour, abused them in unparliamentary language and tried to attack them. Basing on the contents of the above complaint, a case in Crime No.490 of 2008 under Sections 447, 427, 506 IPC was registered on 17.11.2008 on the file of Malkajgiri Police Station and the Sub-Inspector of Police has taken up investigation. The writ petitioners were shown as Accused Nos.3 and 1 respectively. Therefore, the allegation of the petitioners that the respondents have interfered into the civil matter between the petitioners and others is not correct. The petitioners being aware of that a complaint is going to be lodged by B.Harinath Reddy against them, as a precautionary measure and to prevent the police from taking any action, rushed to this Court and filed the present writ petition. From the above, it is clear that there are some disputes between the petitioners and the said B.Harinath Reddy and others and two suits are also pending in that regard. But, that does not mean that the respondents should call the petitioners and harass them every time or threaten them to compromise the matter. In that view of the matter, the respondents are directed not to interfere with the civil disputes between the parties with regard to the land in question. However, they may enquire into the crime already registered and take appropriate action as per law. Subject to the above directions, the writ petition is closed. No costs. _________________ C.V.RAMULU, J 7th SEPTEMBER, 2010. kvni