THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO. 9091 OF 2010 Dated 21st April, 2010 Between: Smt Kaneez Fathima and 11 others …Petitioner And The State of Andhra Pradesh rep. By the Principal Secretary, Home Department and three others …Respondents Counsel for the petitioners : Sri A.S.C.Bose Counsel for respondents 1 to 3: AGP for Home The Court made the following ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.3 in threatening the petitioners to deliver possession of the property admeasuring Ac.1.07 guntas in Survey No.310/B of Teegalaguttapalli Village, Arepalli Mandal, Karimnagar District as illegal and arbitrary. I have heard Sri A.S.C.Bose, learned counsel for the petitioners, and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondents 1 to 3. Serious disputes persist between the petitioner on one side and respondent No.4 on the other. Questioning the order passed under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971, petitioner No.1 filed W.P.No.25797 of 2009 in this Court, wherein this Court granted an order of status quo as to the entries in the revenue records. The petitioners averred that respondent No.4 filed a complaint before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Karimnagar, against them stating that they are trying to interfere with her possession. On reference of the complaint by the learned Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C, the police registered Crime No.3 of 2010 against the petitioners. The petitioners alleged that without completing the investigation, respondent No.3 is seeking to interfere with their possession of the said land and trying to dispossess them therefrom at the instance of respondent No.4. In my opinion, it would be just for respondent No.3 to complete the investigation and file appropriate report before the jurisdictional Magistrate in the case registered against the petitioners. While respondent No.3 is entitled to deal with the petitioners in connection with the criminal case, he is, however, not entitled to interfere in the civil disputes with regard to the possession over the subject land between the petitioners and respondent No.4. Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of main petition, WPMP No.11739 of 2010 filed by the petitioners for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 21st April, 2010 vrn