IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No: 2947 of 2008 Between: Talari Sunil Raj S/o t.s. Samule R/o No. 96/C, S.R. nagar Colony, Hyderabad A.P., ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The State of A.P., rep by its Secretary, Woman and Child Welfare Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Projet Director, Woman and Child Welfare Department, Yousufguda, Hyderabad, A.P., 3 The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Panjagutta Division, West Zone, Hyderabad A.P., 4 The S.H.O. S.R. Nagar Police Station Hyderabad A.P., .....RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Nuthalapati Krishna Murthy Counsel for the Respondents: AGP for Home The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.2947 of 2008 ORDER:- This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in interfering with the petitioner’s property situated at 7-1-279/2 admeasuring 100 square yards at Balkampet, Hyderabad, as illegal, arbitrary and unjust. Heard Sri Nuthalapati Krishna Murthy, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home. The only grievance of the petitioner is that respondent Nos.3 and 4, at the instance of respondent No.2, are preventing him from enjoying the property in dispute. According to the petitioner, though a civil suit, namely, O.S.No.119 of 2008 filed by him against respondent No.2 is pending with V Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad and so also I.A.No.6 of 2008 filed for a temporary injunction is pending, she has been forcibly constructing a compound wall with the aid of respondent Nos.3 and 4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, on instructions, submitted that since the land belongs to the Government, respondent Nos.3 and 4 assisted respondent No.2 to construct a compound wall. In my considered view, respondent Nos.3 and 4 have no power or authority to assist respondent No.2 to raise a compound wall when a civil dispute is pending between the petitioner and respondent No.2. It is not the case of respondent Nos.3 and 4 that a civil Court of competent jurisdiction directed them to aid and assist respondent No.2 to raise a compound wall. Therefore, respondent Nos.3 and 4 are prevented from interfering with the civil dispute between the petitioner and respondent No.2, except acting under a judicial order passed by a Court of competent jurisdiction. Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, WPMP.Nos.3819 and 4967 of 2008 filed by the petitioner for interim relief are disposed of as infructuous. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 03.03.2008 ES