IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 24925 of 2007 Between: 1 Navare Pentu S/o.Ganapathi 2 Navare Bharath S/o.Penty 3 Navare Ramachander S/o.Ganapathi 4 Navare Nirmala W/o.Chandu All are R/o. Balepally vg., Kowtala Mandal, Adilabad District. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Superintendent of Police, Adilabad. 2 The S.I. of Police, Kowtala Police Station, Kowthala, Adilabad District. 3 Navare Marthi S/o.Kanu R/o.Bolempally vg., Kowtala Mandal, Adilabad District. 4 Navare Nanaji S/o.Kanu R/o.Bolempally vg., Kowtala Mandal, Adilabad District. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioners:MR.VENKATESHWAR VARANASI Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 & 2: AGP FOR HOME The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to direct respondent No.1 to cause enquiry into the interference by respondent No.2 in collusion with respondent Nos.3 and 4, in the civil dispute pending between the petitioners and respondent Nos.3 and 4. The grievance of the petitioners is that respondent No.2 is interfering in the civil dispute pertaining to the land admeasuring Ac.15.25 cents in Survey No.25 of Balepally Village, Kowtala Mandal of Adilabad District, in respect of which, two suits, namely O.S.No.68 of 2006 and O.S.No.39 of 2007 are pending before the learned Junior Civil Judge, Sirpur. On 23.11.2007, while ordering notice before admission, this Court directed respondent No.2 not to interfere in the aforementioned civil dispute between the petitioner on the one side and respondent Nos.3 and 4 on the other. No counter-affidavit is filed on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2. Though no notices have been served on respondent Nos.3 and 4, in the manner in which the writ petition is proposed to be disposed of, I do not feel it necessary to await service of notice on respondent Nos.3 and 4. When civil disputes are admittedly pending, there is no justification for respondent Nos.1 and 2 in interfering in such disputes. As noted above, on 23.11.2007, this Court directed respondent No.2 not to interfere in the civil disputes. In the circumstances, I am of the view that interests of justice would be met if the writ petition is disposed of in terms of the order passed by this Court on 23.11.2007 by reiterating the said direction that respondent No.3 shall not interfere in the civil dispute between the petitioner and respondent Nos.3 and 4. Ordered accordingly. As a sequel to disposal of main petition, WPMP.No.32479 of 2007 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 28th APRIL, 2008 kvni