IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WEDNESDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF JUNE, TWO THOUSAND NINE ONLY WRIT PETITION No.12450 of 2006 Between: Nagaveti Lalitha … Petitioner And The Superintendent of Police, Chittoor, Chittoor District & another. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Sri S.V. Muni Reddy Counsel for respondents 1&2: AGP for Home Counsel for respondent No.3: Sri G. Sekhar Reddy for Sri P. Gangarami Reddy This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.12450 of 2006 ORDER:- The petitioner filed the present writ petition feeling aggrieved by the action of respondent Nos.1 and 2 in seeking to interfere with her peaceful possession and enjoyment of land admeasuring Ac.9.00 guntas in R.S.No.6 of Mangalam Village, Tirupathi Urban Mandal, Chittoor District. A perusal of the record shows that the petitioner’s revision, filed against the order cancelling the patta granted in her favour, is pending before the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, A.P., Hyderabad. As the stay application filed by her before the said authority was rejected, the petitioner filed WP.No.26636 of 2003, which was disposed of by this Court by granting stay of all further proceedings in pursuance of cancellation of patta. When the Mandal Revenue Officer, Tirupathi Urban, sought to dispossess the petitioner, she again filed WP.No.10729 of 2006, which was disposed of with the direction to the District Collector, Chittoor and the Mandal Revenue Officer, Tirupathi not to take any steps detrimental to the interests of the petitioner including dispossession till the revision filed by her was disposed of by the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration. It is not in dispute that the abovementioned two orders subsist as on today, because the revision petition is not disposed of as yet by the revisional authority. As regards the alleged interference by the police, in the counter affidavit filed by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Alipiri police station, it is inter alia stated that on the complaint given by the Tirupathi Urban Development Authority (for short, ‘TUDA’) to remove the alleged encroachments from various lands including the land in occupation of the petitioner, crime No.110 of 2006 was registered for the offences under Sections 447, 427 read with Section 34 IPC on 23.06.2006 against the husband of the petitioner and others and that except registering the crime against them and providing police protection to the TUDA officials, he has not interfered with the civil disputes. In view of the fact that this Court protected the possession of the petitioner in the two orders passed in the two writ petitions referred to above, it is not permissible for respondent Nos.1 and 2 to act upon the complaint of respondent No.3 to dispossess the petitioner or her family from the land in dispute. As the orders passed by this Court in the two writ petitions enure to the petitioner’s benefit till disposal of the revision petition, respondent Nos.1 and 2 are directed not to interfere with the petitioner’s possession and enjoyment of the land in question till the disposal of the revision by the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration. Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, WPMP.No.15480 of 2008 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. _____________________________ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 03.06.2009 ES