IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF APRIL, TWO THOUSAND TEN PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.25298 of 2009 Between: k. Chinna Gulab @ Chota Gulab & another. … Petitioners And The Station House Officer, Pahadi Sharief P.S. at Pahadi Sharief, Cyberabad & others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioners: Sri E. Madan Mohan Rao Counsel for respondents 1-3: AGP for Home Counsel for respondent No.4: Sri M.V.S. Suresh Kumar This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.25298 of 2009 ORDER:- At the interlocutory stage, the writ petition is taken up for hearing and disposal with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. I have heard Sri E. Madan Mohan Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Sri M.V.S. Suresh Kumar for respondent No.4. The petitioners herein and respondent No.4 are at loggerheads with respect to certain immovable property. Suit and counter suit have been filed by both the parties. Both the parties are stated to have obtained interlocutory orders. In this scenario, the petitioners filed the present writ petition alleging that respondent Nos.1 to 3 have been unduly interfering with their alleged possession and enjoyment of the property in question. From the pleadings of the parties, it has come out that on the report given by respondent No.4, two crimes, namely, Crime Nos.395 and 348 of 2009 have been registered against petitioner No.1 by respondent No.1 and that investigation is stated to be pending. The specific allegation made by the petitioners that their possession is being disturbed by respondent Nos.1 to 3 at the instance of respondent No.4 has been unequivocally controverted by respondent Nos.1 to 3 and also respondent No.4 through their counters. In paragraph 8 of the counter affidavit, respondent No.1 stated as under: “It is respectfully submitted that this respondent police has nothing to do with the civil dispute between the petitioner as well as the unofficial respondent No.4. The allegation of the petitioner that the respondent Nos.2 and 3 have colluded with the respondent No.4 and it has become routine duty to the respondent Nos.2 and 3 to come to the site and beat the workers and threaten them to book cases against them is far from truth and hence the same is denied. The petitioner has made a representation to this respondent seeking police aid to implement the orders of the Hon’ble Court passed in I.A.No.2330 of 2009 in O.S.No.2088 of 2009.” Sri M.V.S. Suresh Kumar, learned counsel for respondent No.4, strenuously contended that petitioner No.1 along with others, who sold the property to his client, have fabricated certain documents and has been falsely claiming that he is in possession while, as a matter of fact, he is not in possession of the property and that this writ petition is nothing but sheer abuse of process of Court. Controverting the above submission, Sri E. Madan Mohan Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners, asserted that his clients are in possession of the property in question. The scope of the present writ petition is limited to the alleged interference by respondent Nos.1 to 3 with the purported possession of the petitioners. It is neither feasible nor necessary for this Court to adjudicate upon the rival claims of the parties regarding their respective possession. It will suffice to observe that as suit and counter suit have already been pending, the parties shall be free to agitate their rights over the properties in the pending suits. As regards the grievance of the petitioners in the present writ petition, having regard to the stand taken by respondent No.1 in the counter affidavit, the relevant para of which is reproduced hereinabove, no further direction need be given. This order, however, shall not be understood as this Court recognizing the possession of the petitioners over the property. Subject to the above observation, the writ petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, WPMP.No.32960 of 2009 and WVMP.No.4404 of 2009 are disposed of as infructuous. _____________________________ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 16.04.2010 ES