THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO.21579 OF 2010 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed to declare the action of the 1st respondent (Station House Officer), Shamshabad. in interfering with the possession of the petitioners over the land admeasuring Ac.1.04 gts. in Sy.No.698 of Shamshabad village and Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, in the purported implementation of the order of police protection in I.A. No.54 of 2010 in I.A. No.2950 of 2009 in O.S. No.2554 of 2010, on the file of VIII Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District directed against M/s NK Leasing Constructions Ltd. as being contrary to law. A consequential direction is sought to the 1st respondent not to take action against the petitioner which would result in interference with the petitioners’ possession over the subject land. The petitioners herein are the Directors of M/s. NK Leasing Constructions Ltd. Respondents 2 and 3 filed O.S. No.2554 of 2009 before the VIII Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District wherein M/s. NK Leasing Construction Limited was arrayed as the sole defendant. An order of temporary injunction was passed in I.A. No.2950 of 2009 in O.S. No.2554 of 2009. Thereafter an order of police protection was passed in I.A. No.54 of 2010 in I.A. No.2950 of 2009 in O.S. No.2554 of 2009 for effective enforcement of the order of injunction. The said order of injunction is said to have been made absolute subsequently. It is the case of the petitioners that the land admeasuring Ac.1.04 gts in Sy. No.698 of Shamshabad village and Mandal, Ranga Reddy District was purchased by both of them in their individual capacity, and M/s. NK Leasing Constructions Limited is not the owner of the said land. The petitioners herein also filed O.S. No.133 of 2010 on the file of the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District seeking perpetual injunction against respondents 2 and 3 herein. While an order of temporary injunction was granted, the said order was modified to an order of status quo in I.A. No.122 of 2010 in O.S. No.133 of 2010 dated 28.04.2010. According to the petitioners the order of status quo is still subsisting. Subsequently, the respondents 2 and 3 herein filed an application in I.A. No.265 of 2010 in O.S. No.133 of 2010, and the Court below passed order dated 08.06.2010 staying all further proceedings in O.S. No.133 of 2010. The petitioner would allege that pursuant to the order of the Court below granting police protection, respondents 2 and 3 were seeking to encroach upon their land. On the other hand Sri B. Mayur Reddy, Learned Counsel for the vacate stay petitioners would assert that respondents 2 and 3 are in possession, and the police protection was sought only to ensure that they were not evicted from the lands in question. At the stage of admission, this Court passed an order on 30.08.2010 directing the 1st respondent not to interfere with the land admeasuring Ac.1.04 gts in Sy. No.698 of Shamshabad village and Mandal, Ranga Reddy District pending further orders. On a vacate stay petition being filed, the matter was taken up for hearing. During the course of hearing of the Writ Petition, the order in C.R.P. No.936 of 2011 dated 18.03.2011 was brought to the notice of the Court. This Court, while dismissing the C.R.P. at the stage of admission by its order dated 18.03.2011, observed: “……A perusal of the record would show that the petitioners are not the parties to the suit filed by the respondents 1 and 2 against respondent No.3 herein. When they are not parties to the suit, it is clear that they are not bound by the interim orders passed against the third respondent. However, the apprehension of the petitioners herein is that if they are impleaded as parties to the suit they will be bound by the injunction orders passed against the third respondent and also by the order passed by the lower Court granting police aid and that they may be dispossessed from the suit schedule property in which they are in peaceful possession. In the circumstance, I am of the view that the petitioners may file an application to implead themselves as parties to the suit in O.S. No.2554 of 2009 filed by the respondents 1 and 2 herein against the third respondent and put forth all their pleas in the said suit. Similarly, they can file an application to modify or vacate the injunction orders granted in I.A. No.2950 of 2009 and also the orders passed in I.A. No.54 of 2010 and the lower Court after hearing both the parties may pass appropriate orders and it is made clear that till such time, the orders passed against third respondent will not bind the petitioners, since they are not parties to those orders on the date of passing of such orders……….” Sri V. Ramachander Gowd, Learned Counsel for the petitioners, would submit that the petitioners herein have since filed an application to implead themselves in the suit in O.S. No.2554 of 2009, and they have also filed a petition to vacate the order of injunction. Learned Counsel would state that, when these applications were listed before the Court below, the said I.As were adjourned to 22.11.2011. In view of the order of this Court in C.R.P. No.936 of 2011 dated 18.03.2011, as afore-extracted, it is but appropriate that the Court below disposes of both the I.As filed by the petitioner herein at the earliest preferably within a period of two months from the date of a receipt of a copy of this order. In view of the orders now passed, it is wholly unnecessary for this Court to examine the rival contentions urged by Counsel on either side regarding the title of the petitioners and respondents 2 and 3 over the subject lands. With these observations, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. No costs. Date: 08.11.2011 ____________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J MRKR